Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Alfred Law, late Member for the County of Derby (High Peak Division), and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: It is my privilege to present a petition to this honourable House on behalf of old age pensioners as follows:
 To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of residents of the Houghton-le-Spring Parliamentary Division showeth that much hardship and dire poverty-are prevalent among your petitioners, owing to the inadequacy of the present old age pensions causing many of your petitioners to apply for public assistance, and others to become an expense and burden on their sons and daughters.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will as soon as possible bring relief to your petitioners by increasing the amount of the present old age pension, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray that relief by an increase in the amount of the present old age pension will be granted.
The petition is signed by 6,504 persons, all of whom are electors in the Houghton-le-Spring Parliamentary Division.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On behalf of 6,625 members of the Co-operative Women's Guild and 6,637 people resident in the Woolwich area, I desire to present a petition to hon. Members of the House of Commons that there should be an immediate increase in old age and widows' pensions.

Mr. Tomlinson: I desire, on behalf of petitioners from the Farnworth Division of Lancashire, numbering 5,027, who are named in the petition, to present a petition, praying that the House
 may grant facilities for an increase in the old age pension, whereby the poverty which is being sustained as a consequence of its inadequacy may be overcome.
And the petitioners will ever pray, as a consequence thereof, that we may do our duty faithfully and well.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there are a number of other petitions on the same subject. With the approval of the House I will read out the names of the hon. Members presenting them: Mr. Tinker, Mr. Groves, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Burke, Mr. John Morgan, Mr. McEntee, Mr. T. Smith, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Emery, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Woods, Sir William Jenkins, Mr. Alfred Edwards, Mr. Daggar, Mrs. Adamson and Sir Walter Smiles.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do about these petitions?

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hemel Hempstead Water) Bill

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bradford) Bill [Lords'] (by Order), —

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ANTI-EPIDEMIC WORK, CHINA).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of instructing the British delegates at the next assembly of the League of Nations to oppose deletion in the League budget of the grant of 1,050,000 francs for anti-epidemic work in China?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): One and a half million francs was voted by the


League Assembly last September for anti-epidemic work in China during the current year. The question of the allocation for next year will be raised in the course of the Assembly next September. His Majesty's Government fully recognise the value of the League's anti-epidemic work in China, but their attitude must await the discussions of this matter at the Assembly meeting.

Mr. Mander: In the discussions, do the British Government intend to advocate the continuance of this support for China?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will see from what I have said that our attitude must await discussion of this matter in the Assembly. I also said that we appreciate fully the value of this work, and I think the hon. Member can draw his own deductions.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear answer to my question? What is the policy of the British Government, regardless of anybody else?

Mr. Butler: It is not customary to announce our action in advance, before we have had an opportunity of discussion.

Sir Percy Harris: Do the Government intend to give the League a lead in the matter?

Mr. Butler: I said quite clearly in my original answer that we fully recognise the value of this service and this work. I cannot say more.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of proposing that the Council of the League of Nations be immediately summoned under Article II of the Covenant; that in accordance with Article 5 of the Danzig constitution, prohibiting the use of Danzig as a military or naval base or the erection of fortifications without the previous consent of the League, and Article 42, the Senate of Danzig be required to furnish forthwith official information as to the alleged violations of Article 5 of the constitution; and further, that in accordance with the resolution of the League of Nations' Council, of 17th November, 1920, the Council should

establish an international police force in order to protect Danzig against aggression and, in accordance with its resolution on 22nd June, 1921, should instruct the High Commissioner in Danzig to invite Poland to collaborate in its defence?

Mr. Butler: In reply to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) on 12th July. The task of obtaining information from the Senate is, by the report adopted by the Council on 27th January, 1937, entrusted to the High Commissioner of the League of Nations in Danzig. The texts of the resolutions referred to by the hon. Member in the last part do not appear to support the interpretations which he seeks to place upon them.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the advisability of sending a detachment of British and French troops to the neighbourhood of Danzig, in order to make clear our determination to stand firm?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make inquiries and inform the House whether heavy artillery capable of threatening Gdynia has been imported into Danzig by Germany contrary to Statute?

Mr. Butler: The information in my Noble Friend's possession does not confirm any such report.

Mr. Mander: Are the Government satisfied that no artillery of this kind has yet arrived, and if it is sent will they regard it as an act of aggression, to be resisted?

Mr. Butler: I have been asked to answer the question on the Order Paper, and I have given the hon. Member the information in my possession.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the provisions of Article 10 of the League Covenant whereby the territorial integrity and political independence of all member States of the League of Nations is to be maintained, applies to Danzig; whether the resolution passed by the League Council of November, 1920, entrusting the defence of the Free City to the Polish Government if the circumstances warrant it, is


still in force; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that Polish resistance to German aggression against Danzig should be considered as action taken to protect the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: Danzig is not a separate member of the League of Nations and the provisions of Article 10 are not therefore applicable. The operative resolution of the Council concerning the defence of Danzig is that of 18th June, 1921. The last part of the hon. Member's question is hypothetical, but he may rest assured that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to act in accordance with the principles of the Covenant.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask whether in view of the situation His Majesty's Government propose to raise the situation in Danzig at the forthcoming meeting of the League Council?

Mr. Butler: As I have explained previously, the League Council has appointed a committee of three to follow the situation, and they are doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (SITUATION).

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further information as to the result of the inquiries made relative to the smuggling in Northern China; and whether the situation has appreciably altered since his last statement on this subject?

Mr. Butler: The most recent reports received by my Noble Friend indicate that smuggling in this area has been reduced to negligible proportions.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any reply has been received from the Japanese Government to the last representation made on this subject?

Mr. Butler: We have collected what information we have from several sources.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received any reply to the representations made to the Japanese Government, on 6th June, in regard to the action of the so-called Reformed Government in Nanking in endeavouring to insist upon certificates from Japanese authorities before

clearance to inland ports is granted to British ships?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo will continue to press the matter.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we acquiesce in the demands of the Japanese Government in this connection it means, in effect, recognition of the form of Government in Nanking, and does it not mean also agreeing to the Japanese authority to manipulate the Customs as they desire?

Mr. Butler: These important considerations are present to the mind of my Noble Friend, and that is why instructions have been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador to press the matter.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make on the proposed Anglo-Japanese negotiations in Tokyo?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo was to have a further interview with the Japanese Foreign Minister this morning, and my Noble Friend is at present awaiting his report.

Mr. Henderson: What is holding up these negotiations?

The Prime Minister: The discussions are going on.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has he Prime Minister noticed the suggestion in the American Senate that the Brussels Conference might be recalled?

The Prime Minister: I have not noticed it.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to take any action in consequence of the trial by Japanese courts of the Military Attache to His Majesty's Embassy in China?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo is at present awaiting a reply to the inquiries which the Japanese Government are making in this matter and the nature of this reply must naturally affect any action by His Majesty's Government.

Sir A. Knox: Surely it is an unheard of thing for an accredited diplomat to be


tried. Cannot we do something by economic action to bring the Japanese Government to their senses?

Mr. Butler: The House will be aware from the answers which I have given of the seriousness with which His Majesty's Government regard this matter. We are now awaiting a reply from the Japanese Government, and the hon. and gallant Member can rest assured that we shall give it serious consideration.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is it not the case that this man has been in prison for some time, and is it not time that we took some more definite action?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the report of what happened when the engineers were tried in Moscow?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether the diplomatic immunity enjoyed by this officer has been specifically raised with the Japanese Government and, if so, whether any reply has been received on that point?

Mr. Butler: That aspect of the case has been fully studied. There are special circumstances in the case which have to be taken into account in considering diplomatic immunity.

Sir A. Knox: When were the first representations made to the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: Very soon after we heard that Colonel Spears had been detained.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing action of the Japanese authorities against British trading interests in China, he will give notice to the Japanese Government that unless the blockade at Tientsin is immediately brought to an end, and discriminatory action against British trade in China ceases forthwith, definite economic action will be taken by this country against Japan?

Mr. Butler: Conversations have been opened in Tokyo, and it is the present hope of His Majesty's Government that outstanding questions at Tientsin may be settled by negotiation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr, Dalton: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any further statement regarding the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any statement about the relations between Russia and the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The British and French Ambassadors in Moscow had a further meeting with M. Molotov on Monday. Their report is now being considered by His Majesty's Government in consultation with the French Government.

Mr. Dalton: Are we any nearer an agreement as a result of these instructions and transmissions of information one way or another?

The Prime Minister: We certainly have not got an agreement yet.

Mr. Benn: Has the Prime Minister observed the new proposal for a German loan of £25,000,000 to the Soviet Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Watkins: Can the Prime Minister say whether these negotiations will be concluded in order that he may be able to make an announcement before the Summer Recess?

The Prime Minister: I hope so.

Sir A. Sinclair: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be most unfortunate if the House were to part before we know the result of these vital negotiations?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Ought not these questions to be addressed to the Russian Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS' PROPERTY).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered a statement of the treatment meted out to Mr. Robert Oldiner by the German Government with regard to his property in Germany; whether any representations


have been made to the German Government by His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin; and, if so, with what results?

Mr. Butler: I should be much obliged if the hon. Member would provide me with particulars of this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further information in regard to Mr. Frank Ryan, member of the International Brigade and still prisoner of war in Spain; and has the British Government made, or will be prepared to make, representations to the Burgos Government in conjunction with the government of Eire in regard to this man, with a view to his release?

Mr. Butler: As I have previously stated, Mr.Frank Ryan is a citizen of Eire and his case is accordingly being dealt with by the Eire Minister in Spain. His Majesty's Ambassador has informed his colleague that he will be glad to lend his assistance should the latter ever desire it.

Mr. Richards: How many men are still in prison?

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House as to the names of British subjects, members of the International Brigade, who are still prisoners of the Burgos Government in Spain; what is the cause of their detention; are they under any definite terms of imprisonment; and what steps have the British Government taken to obtain their release?

Mr. Butler: Apart from Mr. Frank Ryan, there are three British subjects still in prison in Spain, Mr. Julian Hickman, Mr. James Cameron and Mr. Thomas Jones. His Majesty's Ambassador in Spain is pressing energetically for details of the charges against them, and of any sentences that may have been passed.

Mr. Dobbie: Are we to understand that after this long period we do not know what charges are preferred against these men who are still in prison?

Mr. Butler: When I can, I will communicate them to the House. That is why the Ambassador is pressing the cases and endeavouring to obtain their release.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (ASSETS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the correspondence that passed between the French Government and His Majesty's Government relating to the transfer to Germany of the Czech gold held by the Bank for International Settlements?

Mr. Butler: The communications which passed between the French Government and His Majesty's Government on this subject were made orally, and not in writing.

Mr. Strauss: Were there and written communications at all from the French Government?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Paling: Has any money been transferred by the Bank of England to the German account?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN CONSULATE, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a tea and cake party was held at the German Consulate in Liverpool on Saturday last which many Germans attended; that the swastika emblem was displayed over the doorway and that Nazis in uniform were at the entrance; that this gathering caused resentment among loyal residents of Liverpool who assembled in large numbers necessitating the use of large numbers of police; and can he take steps to have this Consulate run on lines that are less provocative?

Mr. Butler: I understand that about 20 persons attended a social gathering at the German Consulate at Liverpool on 15th July. Some police officers were stationed in the vicinity as a precautionary measure, but the few persons who had assembled in front of the Consulate dispersed without any serious incidents. The police saw no German nationals in uniform, and there is nothing abnormal in the German national emblem being displayed on the premises of a German Consulate. In these circumstances by Noble Friend does not consider that any action is called for in the sense suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. Kirby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep a close watch on the actions of this Consulate in Liverpool; otherwise I am afraid there will be a serious incident one of these days?

Mr. Butler: I have investigated the case which the hon. Member brought to my notice, and I did not find the matter quite so serious as indicated in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Messer: May I ask whether the wearing of a Nazi uniform would be an offence under the Act prohibiting the wearing of political uniforms?

Mr. Butler: I cannot say

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH TYROL.

Marquess of Clydesdale: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the South Tyrol is the only place in Europe where frontier revision provides a simple solution of the racial problem, but that Herr Hitler apparently prefers settling this problem by a scheme to remove the German population from their land, he will take steps to obtain detailed information regarding this scheme with a view to the application of similar principles in the case of other German demands?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's representatives in Germany and Italy are reporting on developments in the plan for dealing with the problem of the South Tyrol. Full details are not yet available, but His Majesty's Government will bear in mind the possible applicability of these principles to other areas.

Marquess of Clydesdale: Has the right hon. Gentleman, on his present information, any reason to suppose that Herr Hitler would prefer war rather than settle his other demands by a similar scheme of the kind in operation in South Tyrol? Moreover, does he think that Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini have initiated a new principle of settling racial problems by negotiation rather than war; or, on the other hand, in view of the fact that the South Tyrol is inhabited by about the oldest German population, is Herr Hitler merely for the sake of expediency acting as treacherously to his own people as he acted to the Prime Minister at Munich?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot answer for Herr Hitler. Hon. Members must draw their own deductions.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the South Tyroleans refuse to be moved?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES (PRICES).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air (I) whether he can undertake that the revised McLintock Agreement now long overdue will be available for the information of Members of this House before the House rises for the Summer Recess;
(2) whether any aircraft contracts are still being executed on a cost plus basis, to the great disadvantage of the taxpayer; and, if so, for what reasons?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Negotiations for a fresh agreement relating to the fixing of prices for aircraft and engines have now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion; and I am arranging, for the convenience of hon. Members, to place copies of the new and the old agreements in the Library. The agreement does not envisage the placing of any contracts on the basis referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand from that answer that in future exorbitant wages at piece-work rates and salaries will not be paid in the aircraft industry?

Sir K. Wood: I should like to have notice of that question.

PRACTICE FLIGHTS, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any information in connection with the British bombing squadrons that were sent over to France; what was the number of machines sent and when the next flight over France will take place?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. On 11th July, 108 bombing aircraft with 378 personnel on board took part in a flight over French territory. The flight was completed by all aircraft according to plan. A further flight is taking place to-day.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the mysterious bomber planes which went over this country last night?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think there was anything mysterious about it. The flight carried out by Wellington bombers over London yesterday was part of a routine training flight arranged by bomber commands.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people thought they were German bombing planes?

Sir K. Wood: That must have been in the circles of the hon. Member.

Mr. Crossley: Is it not very impressive that not a single aeroplane had to come down in a foreign country?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether His Majesty's Government propose to arrange practice flights of Royal Air Force squadrons to Poland, Turkey, Rumania and other countries?

Sir K. Wood: I hope it will be possible to arrange other practice flights in addition to those referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), but I am not at present in a position to give any details.

Mr. Dalton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of stationing part of the Royal Air Force in Poland during this summer?

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter.

AUXILIARY FORCE AND VOLUNTEER RESERVE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make regarding the position of Members of this House who are also members of the Auxiliary Air Force or Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in the event of a General Election.

Sir K. Wood: Hon. Members who are called up for service under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act will be given leave as necessary to attend to their Parliamentary duties both in the House and in their constituencies. The case of a by-election or of a General Election could be dealt with if it arose by release from service for the necessary period.

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: Will the regulation also apply to Members of another place?

Sir K. Wood: I should have to look into that.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Will it also apply to the privates?

Expansion Programme (Jarrow).

Sir John Jarvis: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he proposes to make use of facilities available at Jarrow in connection with the expansion programme of the Royal Air Force?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are being made between the Air Ministry and an industrial concern at Jarrow which will, I hope, result in substantial additions to manufacturing capacity there for Royal Air Force purposes.

Sir J. Jarvis: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication as to the number of men who will be employed in this factory?

Sir K. Wood: I think the number will be about 750.

CONTRACT, KIRKBY.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Messrs. Wimpeys, of London, who are carrying out a building contract for his Department at Kirkby, near Liverpool, have recently discharged a number of employes who are residents in the district, at the same time retaining men in employment there who have come from other areas; and, in view of the heavy degree of unemployment in Liverpool and district, will he urge this firm to employ as much local labour as possible?

Sir K. Wood: The firm in question are erecting a balloon barrage station which is due for completion shortly. I understand that in order to accelerate progress at the beginning of the contract the firm transferred a small number of key men from other places, and as work has progressed some of these have been again transferred elsewhere and at the same time some locally engaged men have been discharged. Out of 481 men now employed on this contract I am informed that 426 live in or within 15 miles of Liverpool.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the last part of the question in relation to the letter which I sent to him regarding this matter?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. My answer covers that. I think the hon. Member will agree that the proportion of the men living in, or within a reasonable distance


Of, Liverpool is a very considerable one, and he will appreciate that in all cases a certain number of key men have to be engaged.

Mr. Kirby: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men about whom I wrote to him were local men, and that at the same time men who were not local men were kept on?

Sir K. Wood: I think that was on account of the particular positions which they occupied, but I will look at the hon. Member's letter again, and communicate with him further.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (DE-ICING).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators of the British Empire to the effect that foreign competitors of British air lines have considerable advantage owing to their superior advantage against the danger of ice secretion; and whether he will consider introducing legislation making it compulsory to equip all public service air vehicles with de-icing systems?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. This question is under review and I hope to make an early statement.

Mr. Day: In view of the urgency of this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make another statement on it?

Sir K. Wood: I hope at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a resolution of protest passed at a mass meeting of citizens in Sierra Leone on 15th June, against, and demanding the repeal of, the Sedition, Disaffection and Undesirable Literature Ordinances, passed in the May session of the Legislative Council; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am deferring further consideration of the Ordinances until I have received the report of the discussions in the Legislative

Council. With regard to the rest of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, I would refer him to the reply which I gave on 12th July to a question by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer).

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (SMUGGLING).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a case of smuggling in East Africa, in which fines amounting to £900 were imposed by the Commissioner of Customs; how many breaches of the law were proved; why these penal proceedings do not take place publicly; and why the name of the guilty person was suppressed?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have seen a reference in the Press to the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have no further information regarding it. I am asking the Governor for a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many fruit trees have been provided to develop fruit production in Gambia; what is the amount of land irrigated under the schemes for growing rice and garden crops; what number of men will be put into work as a result of the above schemes; and does this represent the total effort being made by the administration to develop the colony and to improve the low standard of life of the natives?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is Long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

According to my latest information, the number of fruit trees provided to develop fruit production in the Gambia between the 1st June, 1936, and the end of May, 1938, was 1,321. It was then expected that 7,500 seedling orange trees would be planted in the Kombo districts of the colony in the following rainy season. I am in further communication with the Governor on this and on the points raised in the second and third parts of the question and will inform the hon. Member on receipt of the Governor's reply. The


answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. Efforts to improve native agriculture include the maintenance of experiment stations and nurseries to investigate new crops and improved agricultural methods and to provide planting material for distribution to cultivators, the maintenance of instructional staff, and a system of produce inspection for the improvement of the quality of export produce. Attention is also being paid to the extension and improvement of. food crop cultivation, including rice, the establishment of irrigation projects, the introduction of ploughing, the improvement of the native cattle industry, the eradication of cattle disease and the improvement of the hides and skins industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

CITRUS EXPORTS.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the 15,000,000 cases of citrus exported from Palestine during the 1938–39 season were shipped from Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jaffa, respectively; and what approximate proportion was shipped in British vessels?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Fifty-seven per cent. was shipped from Haifa, 30 percent. from Jaffa and 12 percent. from Tel Aviv. Approximately 10 percent. was shipped in —British vessels.

DEPORTATION ORDER.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a deportation order was made against J. Liftshitz; why he was allowed to reside in Palestine for five years after the order was made; and why the chief secretary, on 28th July, 1938, stated that the Government would not revoke the deportation order?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The deportation order was issued after Liftshitz had been sentenced by the British magistrate at Haifa to six months' imprisonment with a recommendation for deportation on account of seditious activities. But he has been allowed to continue to reside in Palestine, since the Government of Soviet Russia, his country of origin, have refused to authorise his admission to their territory. In view of his past record, the High Commissioner is not prepared to revoke the deportation order against him.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the five years that the deportation order has been suspended the man's character has been satisfactory, and why has it been taken up at the end of that period?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice before I could give an answer regarding his behaviour during the five years. With regard to the second point, I have answered that in the main answer.

Emergency Regulations.

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Israel Sternheim, after being ordered to be detained under the Palestine Emergency Regulations for a year, as from 3rd July, 1937, was still under detention in December, 1938; that he was then ordered to be detained for a further 12 months; whether terms of detention under the Emergency Regulations, Section 156, which according to those Regulations are not to exceed one year, are in fact extended at the conclusion of the original period; and why emergency procedure is used against persons who, having been in custody for considerable periods, could without difficulty be brought before properly constituted courts of law?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Hall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is a very unfair method to violate the regulations in the manner that has been done on this case?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will study the answer, which I admit he has not had a chance of doing, because it is long, I think he will see that the regulations have not been violated.

Following is the answer:

Israel Sternheim was detained under No. 15 (b) of the Emergency Regulations from 2nd September, 1937, to 17th May, 1938, and again from 14th December, 1938, to 18th June, 1939. As regards the second part of the question, in a case where further detention is considered essential on the expiry of a person's period of detention, a further order under Regulation 15 (b) is made on his release. As regards the last part of the question, recourse to emergency procedure is only


made in cases where no specific offence against the Criminal Law can be brought home to the person concerned, but where information in the possession of the authorities indicates that his activities, if he were free, would endanger the lives of other persons or be prejudicial to public security generally.

Mr. Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Meir Slonim, of Hedera in Palestine, after being detained for 12 months under the Emergency Regulations was, in or about August, 1938, ordered to be detained for a further six months under the Prevention of Crime Ordinance; that in or about February, 1939, he was still under detention and was ordered to be detained for a further 12 months either under the Emergency Regulations or under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance; whether the application of the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance to persons already under detention is customary; and whether he approves of such application?

Mr. MacDonald: I am aware that Meir Slonim has been detained under the Emergency Regulations since 6th September, 1937, The Prevention of Crimes Ordinance has not been applied in this case nor in similar cases. This individual is known to have instigated the commission of acts of violence, and his continued detention is considered essential in the interests of public security.

Mr. Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is right to ignore the regulations that govern the jurisprudence of the country? Does he not deprecate the method that has been employed?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member will see that the method which he suggests has been employed has not been employed, and the method we have adopted is perfectly in conformity with the regulations under the Ordinance.

ARAB CENTRE, LONDON (STATEMENT).

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received a reply from the High Commissioner in Palestine to his letter about the atrocities alleged in the document issued recently by the Arab Centre in London?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I have received a reply from the High Commissioner which entirely supports my

description of this document as a piece of propaganda containing a mass of falsehoods.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me something better than that general statement that this is a mass of falsehoods? Cannot he say quite definitely and categorically that these obscene charges that were made are individually untrue, did not happen, and could not possibly have happened?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir, I can say that quite categorically. It seemed to me that the document containing those charges was so fantastic that it condemned itself as untrue, but if anything further is wanted from me, I can give the hon. Member a categorical, affirmative answer.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does that answer also apply to the document sent to the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva by the leaders of the recent Arab delegation to the London Conference?

Mr. MacDonald: If I remember correctly, it was the same document, and the same answer applies to it.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the ban on immigration to Palestine refers only to the normal schedule, or whether it includes refugees?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The decision that, on account of the volume of illegal immigration, no immigration quota can be issued for the next six months period covers all immigrants.

Mr. Williams: Do we understand that refugees from Germany or elsewhere will be excluded, notwithstanding the figures referred to in the White Paper?

Mr. MacDonald: The policy followed from the White Paper. If we had adopted any other policy, we should have been departing from the White Paper policy.

Mr. Woods: Does that exclude students who come to England to study and preclude them from returning to Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: That is another matter, and probably there is a difference between one individual case and another, but I think the ordinary Palestine citizens who come to this country for a period


of study are always free to go back to Palestine in accordance with the regulations.

Mr. Lipson: Will that ban apply to children also?

DETENUS.

Sir Ernest Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the fact that an Arab lady, Mrs. Sadij Nassar, of Haifa, after being imprisoned for three months is now being detained for a further period of six months without receiving any information as to the charge against her or undergoing any form of trial; and whether in the circumstances, he will take steps either to bring Mrs. Nassar to trial or else allow her to return to her home and family?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not complete information on this case, but have asked the High Commissioner for a report on it.

Sir E. Bennett: May I ask whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus can issue in a Mandated Territory?

Mr. MacDonald: I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Moshinsky, a shopkeeper in Jerusalem, has been detained in the Jerusalem central prison since last May without trial; and how many Jews are detained as a result of the suspension of trial in the Jerusalem and Acre central prisons?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no information about the case of Mr. Moshinsky, but am asking the High Commissioner for a report. As regards the second part of the question, 122 Jews were detained under the Emergency Regulations at the beginning of the present month. I have no information as to how many of them were detained in the two particular prisons to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Adams: Have the persons concerned been advised of the charges which are levelled against them?

Mr. MacDonald: I think they are very well aware of the reasons why they are detained.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many reports he has now

asked for from Commissioners and Governors and others and how long he expects to be getting the answers?

ABYSSINIAN COMMUNITY, JERUSALEM.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons he has ordered the Abyssinian community in Jerusalem to hand over their personal belongings to the Italian Consulate?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No such order has been given.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that protests from Abyssinians in Palestine are being received in this country?

Mr. MacDonald: If there are protests to this effect, then they are protests which are not relevant to the situation which has arisen. No order of this kind has been given.

Population (Jews and Arabs).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the Departmental estimate of the natural increase in population in Palestine, showing the difference between the Jewish and Arab sections?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The present Arab rate of natural increase is estimated at 23.75 Per thousand and the Jewish rate at 20.53 Per thousand. It is estimated that by 1948 the Arab rate of natural increase will have decreased to 20.77 Per thousand; the Jewish rate of natural increase remaining constant at 20.53. Thereafter it is expected that the Jewish rate will begin to exceed the Arab rate.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what basis the calculation has been made?

Mr, MacDonald: It is on the same sort of basis as that used when these statistics are worked out in this country or in other countries. I am sorry if the hon. Member has been disappointed by the nature of the reply.

Mr. Crossley: Do not these figures show the need for a drastic reduction of immigration?

Mr. Williams: Is not the reply just given by the right hon. Gentleman contradictory of the information provided to this House and to the world in the report which was issued?

Mr. MacDonald: I have answered the hon. Member's question as to the basis on which the official figures are presented. I do not think these figures are in conflict with other official figures which have been published.

ARAB LEADERS (MANIFESTO).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take upon the manifesto of the Palestine Arab leaders in Syria, recently published by his Department, and containing attacks upon the former Mufti of Jerusalem and the Arab Higher Commission, which is, in effect, a denunciation of the Palestine Arab leaders who are associated with the London Arab centre which has recently made itself responsible for attacks upon the British Army in Palestine?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I do not think that this manifesto, which was not published by my Department, calls for any particular action on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Williams: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the publication had no relation whatever to the Colonial Office?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir. When this document was first published it was as unexpected by us as by anybody else, we have given it the publicity which it deserves, but it was not published by us.

Mr. Williams: In view of the contents of the document referred to and the fact that eight rebel commanders denounced the former Mufti and his colleagues, is the right hon. Gentleman still continuing negotiations with these known robbers and thieves and plunderers?

Mr. MacDonald: We have had no negotiations with any representatives of the Palestine Arabs since the London Conference came to an end months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (SUPREME COURT).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the considerable amount of additional work entailed, and the waste of public money involved in bringing domestic disputes of a minor character before the Supreme Court, such as the recent appeal

of Mrs. W. Wood of Nairobi, to the Supreme Court of Kenya, he will consider the possibility of the setting up of special labour courts, or of taking some other steps where such cases could be dealt with efficiently and speedily?

Mr. M, MacDonald: I understand that the case to which my hon. Friend refers only came before the Supreme Court because the magistrate had stated a case on a question of law for the opinion of the Supreme Court, which is the proper place for points of law to be decided. I see no occasion, therefore, for adopting the course which my hon. Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Public Meetings Law enacted on 23rd June, in Jamaica, giving the Governor power to restrict the right of public meeting and processions at will, was submitted to him for his consideration; whether he considered other means of controlling the hooligan and criminal element, on whose account the Governor stated the law was essential, before imposing repressive legislation on peaceful citizens seeking to ventilate their grievances in a legitimate and normal way, and why, as the unrest which exists in Jamaica is due to the fact that little has been done to improve the economic and social conditions responsible for the trouble in May, 1938, he did not take steps to deal with these evils instead of sanctioning legislation of this kind passed without proper consideration by the local legislature?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Public Meetings Bill was not submitted to me before being introduced in the Legislative Council, but I approved the principle of the legislation before it was introduced. With regard to the last part of the question, much has been done in the last year through increases of wages, new public works, land settlement and other means to improve conditions. The full development of these activities will take time. As hon. Members know, the Royal Commission has also visited the island and is now preparing its report.

Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that the troubles which have arisen, and which have been mainly responsible for the new legislation, have arisen because very little


has been done in the fifteen months or more that hare elapsed since the troubles of May, 1938, and is it not a fact that no houses have been built, that the land settlement has made no provision for the unemployed, that trade unions are still at a disadvantage, and that the unemployed generally have had no relief of a suitable character given to them?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not accept that sweeping description of the situation. A great deal has been done during the last twelve months, but I would make the point that in all cases it takes time for schemes for the relief of unemployment and so on to produce their maximum effect, and the pace during the last twelve months has necessarily been slower than it will be as the schemes develop.

Mr. Paling: If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the sweeping description, will he look at the individual items I have mentioned and tell me where I am wrong?

Mr. Riley: Is the legislation in connection with public meetings of a temporary or permanent character?

Mr. MacDonald: I am still expecting the text of the Bill. My impression is that it is not a temporary measure, but I should like to have notice before giving a confident answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of children of school age in Cyprus; the number of children actually attending school in the Colony; the average length of attendance at school; and the proportion of children attending school who are receiving instruction in English?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The estimated number of children of elementary school age in Cyprus is 77,000 and of secondary school age 60,000. Of these 46,926 and 4,784 respectively are at present attending schools. In addition many of those of elementary school age who are not now attending school have attended school in the past, but have been withdrawn by their parents to help in agricultural work. The average length of attendance at school is four years in the elementary

schools, and in the secondary schools five years for boys and four years for girls. Ten percent. of the children in elementary schools and the whole of the pupils in secondary schools receive instruction in English.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the proportion of children receiving instruction in English in view of the fact that Cyprus is now part of the British Empire, and it is imperative that these young children should be brought up as citizens of the Empire?

Mr. MacDonald: I shall look into that matter.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (I) whether he is aware that on 29th May, the municipal councillors of Famugusta were notified by the provincial commissioner that any participation by them in any movement for the reform of the machinery of government in Cyprus would be regarded as inconsistent with their duties and responsibilities as councillors, and that on receipt of such notification four councillors resigned from office; whether any of these councillors communicated the reasons for their resignation to the Government of Cyprus; and whether he has been made aware of the terms of their communication; and what action he has taken;
(2) whether he can state the grounds upon which, on 25th May, Mr. Tsan-garides was relieved by the Acting Governor of Cyprus of his office as a municipal councillor of Nicosia; and whether he has received from the Acting Governor a copy of the communication sent by Mr. Tsangarides to the Commissioner of Nicosia on receipt of notification of his dismissal?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no information regarding the matters referred to in these questions, but have asked the Acting Governor for a report.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the reason for which the right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about the matter that he has taken no interest in it, or is it that the Administration in Cyprus thinks he takes no interest in it?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that the information was asked for some weeks ago at least and that the Minister then gave the same answer? Has he not got any report yet about this business?

Mr. MacDonald: No, it was not some weeks ago. It was some time ago, and 1 am still awaiting the report.

Mr. Paling: In any event, is it not more than one week and probably nearer three weeks?

Mr. MacDonald: I should not like to give an exact answer to that question. I asked for a report as soon as the question was asked. As the hon. Member knows, communication with Cyprus is not as good as it is with some other parts of the world, and it does take time for full reports of these detailed matters to come in, but there is no avoidable delay.

Sir P. Harris: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman use the air mail? Is not the island connected with the air mail?

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what articles calculated to disturb good relations in Cyprus have been published by Embros and Eleftheria which justified the recent censorship of those papers?

Mr. MacDonald: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the warning which was given to newspaper editors at the end of May. I would refer him to the answer which I gave to a question which he asked on 12th July.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the responsibility that rests not only upon the right hon. Gentleman but upon this House to see that proper conditions prevail in Colonies, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the importance of letting us have, in a proper way, information about what is objected to in these newspapers?

Mr. MacDonald: I have answered questions on this matter very fully, I think, and described to the House how these newspaper articles must be considered in the light of the general situation in Cyprus, and the articles by themselves do not give a proper picture of the situation.

Mr. Benn: Is it still forbidden to publish in Cyprus reports of Parliamentary Debates concerning Cyprus?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir, no such ban exists.

Mr. Benn: Yes, it does.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Governor of Cyprus, in a public lecture the other night, said the situation in Cyprus had never been dangerous and that except for a few agitators it is perfectly calm, and therefore why has this censorship been imposed?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think that I can be expected to have knowledge of every lecture or about the details of every individual case which is brought to my attention in this House, and that is one reason why I have to ask for so many reports in order to serve hon. Members of this House properly.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that many prominent Cypriots who were promoters of the petition to the Government asking for a representative constitution deny that there was any intention or action on the part of the promoters to obtain signatures by misrepresentation and fraud; and whether he will therefore appoint a committee independent of Government officials to inquire into the matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I am glad to know of this assurance from some of the promoters of the petition, but I am satisfied that there were cases of misrepresentation and improper pressure. I would see no purpose in setting up the committee of inquiry which the hon. Member suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether he will provide time for a discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Fife, on the subject of the duties, powers and authority vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland?
[That, in view of the greatly-increased responsibilities placed in recent years upon the Secretary of State for Scotland without commensurate addition to the staff attached to his office, of the continued unsatisfactory state of economic and social conditions, and of the urgent need for comprehensive schemes of national development in Scotland, this House, bearing in mind that the Report of the


Committee on Scottish Administration presented to Parliament in 1937 dealt only with the form and inter-relations of the various Departments under the control of the Secretary of State, is of opinion that the time has come for an examination of the duties, powers, and authority vested in the Secretary of State and urges the immediate appointment of a Joint Committee to inquire into these and related matters and to recommend what changes, legislative or otherwise, should be made with a view to equipping the Secretary of State adequately for the tasks confronting him.]

The Prime Minister: I regret that I can hold out no hope of time being found for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with or call for a report from the Secretary of State for Scotland, and various ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland who are now Members of the House, in order to satisfy himself of the need and urgency for an inquiry of the nature suggested in this Motion?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS FUND BILL.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that it is not contemplated that the pensions proposed to be provided for ex- Members of this House who have no other means of livelihood shall involve any additional burdens on the taxpayer?

The Prime Minister: As I explained when moving the Second Reading of the House of Commons Members Fund Bill last week, its provisions will involve no charge upon public funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT (SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister which Department of State is charged with the duty of considering the impact of scientific investigation on employment and to which Minister questions on that subject should be addressed?

The Prime Minister: The assignment to a Department of State of such a question would necessarily depend upon the particular point raised, but questions relating

to employment should ordinarily be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Fleming: asked the Prime Minister whether he has acceded to the request to him to receive a deputation from certain local authorities to discuss the matter of old age pensioners who are also receiving public assistance from the said local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the request to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, but I would refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to a question by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) on 4th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY).

Mr. Batey: asked the Prime Minister why, having recommended the appointment as Minister of Health of an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, he concurred in the appointment as Parliamentary Secretary of another hon. Member for a Scottish constituency who also has had no experience of the work performed by public authorities in England and Wales?

The Prime Minister: I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is fully competent to discharge the duties of the office to which she has been appointed.

Mr. T. Johnston: Has the right hon. Gentleman contemplated the serious situation that might arise in the event of the principle complained of in this question being made applicable to the Scottish Office?

Mr. Batey: Is not this a grave departure; and are we to understand that the Prime Minister was not able to find a member representing an English or Welsh constituency who was qualified for this post?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Member must not understand that.

Mr. Poole: Will the Prime Minister consider bringing in a Bill making Home Rule applicable to England?

Mr. Tomlinson: Has the Prime Minister considered the position of local authorities in regard to this action?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.

HOUSEHOLD RESERVES.

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his attention has been called to the instructions of the Swiss Government to all householders to lay in two months stores of certain main foods which, in the event of war, will for a period only be on sale by licence to those who cannot afford to lay in stores now; and whether he will consider issuing similar instructions to householders in this country?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): My attention has been drawn to the plans which are being made in Switzerland. The plans of His Majesty's Government are designed to meet the particular situation of this country in regard to food supply and are therefore framed on a different basis. I circulated on 5th July a statement on the question of household reserves in Great Britain.

STORAGE.

Mr. White: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether all accommodation suitable for the storage of food is being fully utilised and if arrangements have been made to use any accommodation which may not be fully utilised by the firms owning it for the storage of Government reserves?

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether all plans have been completed for the inland storage of adequate reserves of imported food, grains, meat, and pastoral products to cover demand for an ox tended period, so that storage accommodation may not have to be arranged in a hurry and at the last moment should necessity arise?

Mr. Loftus: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action His Majesty's Government has taken under the powers given in the Essential Commodities Reserves Act, 1938, to increase storage accommodation for food reserves?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government has had a complete survey

of all food storage accommodation in the country under the powers given by the Essential Commodities Reserves Act, 1938, or otherwise; and what action it has taken to utilise accommodation which is, or could be made, suitable for that purpose though not specially designed for it?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Existing storage accommodation, a substantial part of which is inland, is used for the storage of Government reserves, when such accommodation is suitable and when it is available in the light of commercial requirements which vary from time to time. In some cases the accommodation has been specially adapted. Accommodation has been erected for Government reserves when existing accommodation has been unsuitable or insufficient. Close examination has been given, in connection with the plans for importation and distribution in time of war, to the availability in convenient centres of accommodation which would serve for storage purposes and a record has been prepared of suitable accommodation. Steps are being taken to provide adequate accommodation to meet the estimated requirements and arrangements have been made for the removal and storage inland of commercial stocks of certain important commodities should the necessity arise.

Mr. White: Is the House to understand that the existing storage is fully occupied by reserve stocks of one kind and another?

Mr. Morrison: I could not quite say that because some of the existing storage is unsuitable for these reserves by reason either of its construction or of its location. Also a great deal of the storage is commercial storage, the call upon which varies from time to time. But I can go is far as to say that all public storage is adequately utilised.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what date he expects the storage that is required for food to be, in his own words adequate; and can he tell us whether the amount of food storage in this country is as great as that which Germany has provided?

Mr. Morrison: I would require notice of the second part of the hon. Member's question. In regard to the first part, it would be impossible to give an accurate date because the situation as regards reserves is being reviewed from time to


time in the light of the general situation, and as it is not a case of a static requirement, it is impossible to prognosticate an exact date.

Mr. Loftus: Has my right hon. Friend made inquiries as to the extensive and excellent accommodation available in makings, and also perhaps in distilleries and breweries which is not utilised at present, and will he take a census of available accommodation?

Mr. Morrison: We have made inquiries into the question of the storage which is available. I will pay particular attention to the aspect of the question to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: In view of the abnormally low price of wheat, is it the Minister's intention to purchase larger quantities of grain and straw for both economic and military reasons?

Mr. Morrison: There is a question on the Paper dealing with that important matter.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is there not sufficient storage in the old age pensioner's pantry?

Mr. Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied that the amount of cold storage accommodation is sufficient; and, if not, what steps he is taking to increase it under the powers given in the Essential Commodities Reserves Act, 1938?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that there shall be sufficient cold storage facilities in West and South-West of England to meet the contingency of our having to route food ships to Western instead of Eastern ports?

Mr. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker), on 7th June.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything quickly to increase the storage accommodation for food among householders in reception areas?

Mr. Morrison: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I did make a statement

on that question on 5th July. From the correspondence that has reached me, I think it has had a great deal of publicity, but I am taking steps to inquire whether it cannot be more widely disseminated.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman refresh my memory about the reply to which he has referred? Is the cold storage in the West country really adequate?

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in the preparation of the plans for storing and distributing food in an emergency, consideration has been given to the prior claims of those who are engaged in heavy manual labour; and what measures have been taken to deal with this position?

Mr. Morrison: The rationing scheme provides for an additional quantity of meat in the case of persons engaged in heavy manual labour.

Mr. Griffiths: In drawing up the scheme and making arrangements for the storage of food, have the representatives of the workers of the country been consulted at any stage to see whether they think the plans are adequate?

Mr. Morrison: I would not like to say offhand, but I will make inquiries as to what consultations have been held. I do know, however, that a generous allowance is made for those engaged in heavy work.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is important that the workers should be satisfied, and if that consideration has not been borne in mind, will he undertake to have such consultations?

Mr. Morrison: I will gladly consider that.

GOVERNMENT RESERVES.

Mr. White: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government will extend its food reserves policy, which is at present designed merely to relieve temporary dislocation in the early period of a war, so as also to reduce the danger of a shortage of food which may result from a diminution of imports in a protracted war.

62. Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-


caster whether, having regard to the new menace to ships and docks of the air weapon, he is basing his food-reserves policy upon the possibility that imports will be considerably less than they were in the last war?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In framing its policy in regard to reserves of all kinds, including foodstuffs, His Majesty's Government have taken into account all relevant considerations, including factors affecting the maintenance of our overseas trade in time of war.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the Milk Marketing Board, the Bacon Marketing Board, and the Potato Marketing Board are still restricting output, and will they try to adapt themselves to an emergency procedure?

Sir Arthur Salter: May we understand from the answer that this is a definite extension of the Government's policy, which, as last pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman, was designed only to obtain reserves to meet the early dislocation of the first few weeks or months of war?

Mr. Morrison: I think there was some misunderstanding as to the earlier reference. What this answer says is that all these considerations, including those to which the hon. Member refers, are taken into account in framing our storage policy.

Mr. Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to how many days of normal expenditure on food imports is the total spent by the Government upon food reserves in the last and current financial year, respectively, equivalent?

Mr. Morrison: The Government reserves are reserves of essential foodstuffs, and the particular commodities are selected having due regard to their relative cheapness and high food value. Normal imports include large quantities of food of high cost, much of which would not be essential in an emergency. I should not propose to offer a calculation, on the basis suggested by the hon. Member, which would, I think, be misleading as indication of the purpose or adequacy of the Government reserves.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: In view of the importance of wheat as a staple food, and in view of the fact that wheat has reached

so low a price, is it not desirable, both for economic and military reasons, that very large stocks of it should be accumulated in Great Britain?

Mr. Morrison: That matter is referred to later.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the total stocks in this country of the three foodstuffs purchased in the last financial year at a total cost of £7,500,000, namely, wheat, sugar, and whale oil, are in each case greater than the stocks at the same date in the last year before the Government purchases; and, if so, whether they are greater to the extent of the Government purchases?

Mr. Morrison: As regards wheat and whale oil, the answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. Commercial stocks of sugar have declined for reasons which have no connection with the extent of the Government reserve. Steps have already been taken to check this decline.

Mr. Loftus: Would my right hon. Friend reply to the last part of the question, as to whether the total excess of stocks is greater than the £7,500,000?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. If my hon. Friend looks at the answer, I think he will see that it is in the affirmative to both parts of his question.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend ponder over that part which relates to wheat? I think he should give wheat a little more thought?

Sir George Schuster: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether advantage will be taken of the present low price of wheat to add to the Government security wheat reserves?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. A substantial addition has recently been made to the Government's wheat reserve.

Mr. A. Bevan: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the extent of the increase?

Mr. Morrison: No, it would not be in the public interest to indicate the extent, but it is substantial.

Mr. De la Bere: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will extend the field to others, so as not to have a monopoly of the milling combines?

ARMAMENT PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contracts are held by the firm of J. Mandleberg and Company, which will come under the Armament Profits Duty?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. I regret that I am unable to disclose information regarding contracts made with particular firms. In any case I could not anticipate the operation of the Armament Profits Duty, which is dependent on the enactment of Part III of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that this firm is getting very big contracts and has two directors sitting on the Government benches, and is it not a practice that would not be allowed by local administrative bodies?

TRANSPORT.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.

Mr. McLean Watson: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to several instances of congestion of traffic on the ferry passage at Queensferry recently; whether he is aware that the ordinary running schedule has been departed from and speeded up; and as this shows a preference for motorists to cross the Forth at this point, what steps is he taking to meet the increasing necessity for a road bridge in this neighbourhood?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I understand that the congestion to which the hon. Member refers was entirely due to the abnormal traffic attracted to St. Andrews during the Open Golf Championship, and that apart from two additional crossings which were made for that reason on Thursday, 6th July, the ferry has been running to its normal schedule. With regard to the last part of the question, surveys have been made with the aid of grants from the Road Fund, but as I indicated to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) on 17th May, I am unable at present to offer any contribution towards the construction of a bridge, in view of the other calls upon the national resources.

Mr. Watson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that not only on the occasion referred to but on several other occasions there has been the same congestion, and, in view of the fact that road traffic is increasing in that direction, will he reconsider the matter with regard to the construction of this bridge?

Captain Wallace: Not, I am afraid, until the financial situation changes.

Mr. Mathers: In order that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be informed about the actual conditions that do prevail at busy periods at this crossing, will he arrange for observers from his Department to be there, for: example, on August Monday?

Captain Wallace: I will certainly consider that.

BRIDGE, CYMMER.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will inquire into the unsatisfactory and dangerous condition of the bridge belonging jointly to the Glyncorrwg Urban District Council and the Great Western Railway, at Cymmer, and ascertain when the new bridge will be erected, as it is now a source of public danger?

Captain Wallace: The improvement of this bridge was included in a programme of works which the Glamorgan County Council proposed to put in hand in the year 1936, and they were then informed that a grant of 75 percent. of the net cost of an approved scheme would be made from the Road Fund. I understand that the matter has. been deferred pending consideration of a scheme of diversion which would render expenditure on the existing bridge unnecessary.

Sir W. Jenkins: The bridge I am referring to is a bridge belonging jointly to the Glyncorrwg Council and the Great Western Railway Company and the bridge to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring is another bridge.

Captain Wallace: I am referring to the bridge belonging to the council and the railway company.

JERSEY MARINE BRIDGE.

Sir W. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to get the Jersey Marine Bridge erected;


is he aware of the dangerous position of the present structure, and that the matter has been under consideration for a number of years?

Captain Wallace: I am aware of the unsatisfactory condition of the Jersey Marine Bridge. Negotiations between the Glamorgan County Council and the Great Western Railway Company were recently interrupted by a request for the modification of the alignment of the approach roads to avoid interference with a Civil Aerodrome in process of development. An amended line has been agreed and I understand that the County Council are now in a position to complete arrangements with the Company for the construction of a new bridge.

SUBMARINE TRIALS (PRECAUTIONS).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: (by Private Notice): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what modifications of the procedure obtaining in the case of the "Thetis" trials will be made in the trials of new submarines taking place pending the Report of the "Thetis" inquiry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): It has been decided that pending the report of the Public Inquiry into the "Thetis" disaster a naval vessel capable of communicating with the submarine whilst submerged will attend diving trials at sea, and the submarine will tow a type of marker buoy while diving so that her position will be known. Civilian personnel attending diving trials will be given an opportunity, which naval personnel already have, of making a practice escape in a tank using the Davis apparatus. In addition the numbers of men on board during diving trials will be closely scrutinised.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Without wishing to turn that answer into a commentary on what has transpired at the "Thetis" inquiry, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he realises that public opinion will be quick to appreciate that lessons arising out of the "Thetis" disaster have already been laid to heart by the Admiralty, and certain obvious conclusions to be drawn from them have been promptly put into effect?

Mr. Shakespeare: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his reassuring statement.

REFUGEES (MAINTENANCE AND EMIGRATION COST).

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the increasing burden of the cost of the maintenance of refugees in the various countries of refuge makes it extremely difficult for the voluntary organisations in these countries to find the sums required for emigration overseas; and whether in view of this situation, His Majesty's Government are prepared to reconsider the recommendation of the Evian Meeting that the Governments of the countries of refuge and settlement should not assume any obligations for the financing of involuntary emigration?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have given very careful consideration to the serious situation which has come about in connection with the cost of the maintenance and emigration of refugees. It is clearly necessary that large sums should be raised for the emigration of refugees, but in existing circumstances it is impossible for the private organisations to find these sums in the measure requisite for a satisfactory solution of the problem. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have, therefore, reached the conclusion that, unless the work of the Committee is to be seriously obstructed and the countries of refuge are to be left with large numbers of refugees who cannot be absorbed, it will be necessary to depart from the principle agreed unanimously at Evian, that no participating Government would give direct financial assistance to refugees.
His Majesty's Government are, for their part, examining the manner and extent to which private subscription to an individual fund to assist in defraying the expenses of overseas emigration of refugees might be encouraged by Government participation, possibly on a basis proportionate to the amount of private subscription. The United Kingdom Representative on the Inter-Governmental Committee will invite his colleagues to lay these considerations before their Governments and to communicate their views to him without delay. If other Govern-


ments are prepared to agree to this change of principle, and to co-operate in such participation, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will take the initiative in proposing a scheme for the purpose.

BILL PRESENTED.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL,

" to prevent the commission in Great Britain of further acts of violence designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to Irish affairs; and to confer on the Secretary of State extraordinary powers in that behalf; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Samuel Hoare; supported by Mr. Colville, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister how far the House will be asked to go to-night in the event of the Motion

to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried? Further, now that the Ministry of Supply has been established, will he say on which day questions should be addressed to the Minister of Supply?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest that questions should be addressed to the Minister of Supply on Monday, immediately following questions addressed to me which begin at No. 45. We might try that arrangement as an experiment for the remainder of the Session. In regard to the business to-day, we desire to obtain, after the Business Motion, the Second Reading of the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, and also the Committee stage, of the House of Commons Members Fund Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,

" That the Proceedings 0n Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."-[The Prime Minister."]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 137.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
3.53 p.m.


Aaland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Goldie, N. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Albery, Sir Irving
Christie, J. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Ciarry, Sir Reginald
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grimston, R. V.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W


Assheton, R,
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.


Altar, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hannah, I. C.


Baillia, Sir A. W. M.
Cooper, Rt.Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ s.)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastie)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A


Beauchamp, Sir B. C
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cross, R. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Beechman, N. A.
Crossley, A. C.
Hepworth, J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Higgs, W. F.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
De Chair, S. S.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. S r S.


Bernays, R. H.
De la Bère, R.
Holdsworth, H.


Boulton, W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Holmes, J. S.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Donner, P. W.
Hopkinson, A.


Brass, Sir W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Dugdale, Captain T.L.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duggan, H. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Browne, A. G. (Belfast, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.


Bullock, Cant. M.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hunloke, H. P.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Emery, J. F.
Hunter, T.


Butcher, H. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Jennings, R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Keeling, E. H.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Findlay, Sir E.
Kellett, Major E. O.


Cary, R. A.
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chaster)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cazalat, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippanham)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gledhill, G.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Channon, H.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.




Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Patrick, C. M.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Latham, Sir P.
Peake, 0.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Lees-Jones, J.
Peat, C. U.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Petherick, M.
Spens, W. P.


Lonnox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Levy, T.
Pilkington, R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Liddall, W. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Storey, S.


Lipson, D. L,
Porritt, R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Little, J.
Procter, Major H. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)


Lloyd, G. W.
Radford, E. A
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Loftus, P. C.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rankln, Sir R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Titchfield, Marquess of


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


McKie, J. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Tulnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Macnamara, Lieut.Colonel J. R. J.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wakefield, W. W.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Riokards, G. W. (Skipton)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Margesson, Capt. at. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan 


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Marsden, Commander A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mason, Lt..Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Rowlands, G.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A,
 Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mitchell, Sir W. Lans (Streatham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Moreing, A. C.
Salt, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wright, Wing-Commandar J. A. C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Schuster, Sir G. E.
York, C.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.



Nicholson, Hon. H. G.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Orr-Ewing, 1. L.
Smithers, Sir W.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Palmer, C. E. H.
Snadden, W. McN.
Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Ban field, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, Agnes
Parkinson, J. A.


Barr, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Pathick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Poole, C. C.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell. D. J. K.


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Collindridge, F.
Johnston, Rt. Han. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dagger, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sloan, A.


Dalton, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Lee, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson. G.


Gaflaehar, W.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. MeL.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Messer, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Granfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
Westwood, J.




White, H. Graham
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Whitelay, W. (Blayden)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)



Wilkinson, Ellan
Woods. G. S. (Finsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

BILLS REPORTED.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to, —

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Falmouth) Bill, without amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to secure improvement in the health and quality of live poultry, and in the marketing of poultry and eggs; for making better provision for securing the marking of preserved eggs, and the enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1938, as respects imported eggs; for regulating the importation of poultry and eggs; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Poultry Industry Bill [Lords.]

SELECTION (SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) BILL SELECT COMMITTEE).

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Senior Public Elementary Schools (Liverpool) Bill: Mr. Ammon, Sir John Mellor and Mr. Storey.

Report to lie upon the Table.

CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL (CHANGED TO "HOUSE TO HOUSE COLLECTIONS BILL".

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.

[Bill 204.]

BRITISH OVERSEAS BILL.

Minutes of Evidence taken this day reported from the Select Committee.

Minutes of Evidence to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).

4.2 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
 That for the purpose of concluding the Business of Supply for the present Session, Standing Order No. 14 shall have effect as if in paragraph (I) Sixteen days were substituted for Twenty; as if in paragraph (6) the Fifteenth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph (7) the Sixteenth day were substituted for the Twentieth day so allotted; and that notwithstanding anything in the Standing Order a Friday sitting shall be equivalent to a single sitting on any other day,
Under Standing Order No. 14, 20 days are allotted before 5th August for consideration of the annual Estimates, including Votes on Account. The Standing Order also provides that a Friday shall be counted as half of an allotted Supply day. The Motion which I have moved proposes that the number of allotted Supply days shall be reduced to 16 this Session, and that if Supply is put down on a Friday that Friday shall be counted as a whole allotted day for purposes of Supply. I should like to say that if this Motion is carried the Government would propose to use this latter provision for only one Friday, namely, Friday of this week. The other day, when I gave notice that I would put down this Motion, I was asked whether there were any precedents for anything of the kind, and I said then that there were. I dare say that hon. Members who are interested in the question have already informed themselves of what those precedents are, but, at any rate, I would like to tell the House that since 1915 there have been four occasions when Supply days have been cut down. The latest of them was in 1929, when Supply days were reduced to 13. That was done by a general agreement in view of the Dissolution of Parliament in May of that year. But in the War years there were three occasions when, to meet the congestion of business, Supply days were reduced, namely, in 1915, when they were reduced to 17 days; in 1916, when they were reduced to 15; and in 1917 when they were reduced to 16.
I do not pretend that the precise circumstances of any of those precedents are reproduced to-day, but I do say this: I think everyone recognises that we are

passing through an abnormal period—an abnormal period when the Government of the day is bound to find it necessary from time to time to introduce Measures of great urgency which could not have been foreseen at the beginning of the Session. There are three such Measures that perhaps I might mention now, which we have had to debate this Session. There were the Military Training Bill, the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Bill and the Ministry of Supply Bill. None of those Bills could have been foreseen when we were debating the Address. They were all urgent, and in all they consumed over II days of Parliamentary time. Eleven days out of the number of days available is a very large number, and it is perfectly obvious that such unusual demands must make hay with any Parliamentary programme. We have also had to deal with other important Measures of an emergency character besides those I have just mentioned.
I would take this opportunity of acknowledging gratefully the co-operation of all parties and all sections of the House in the discussion of the Civil Defence Bill. We have already had a very busy Session and we have had to ask hon. Members to work very hard. We have dealt with a great deal of business, but I am afraid that there is still a large amount outstanding which the Government must ask the House to pass before we adjourn. Even now at this very late period it is necessary for us to bring forward a new Measure of urgency. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is presenting to-day a Bill to give further powers for dealing with the activities of the Irish Republican Army, which it is necessary to pass without delay. There is also the possibility of another Bill, because the negotiations which are now proceeding with the Polish financial delegation to this country may result in an agreement which would require statutory authority. If it had not been for those two Bills, the Bill to deal with the Irish Republican Army and the Bill which we may have to introduce to implement an agreement with the Polish financial delegation, it certainly would not have been necessary for me to propose anything so drastic as that which I am now asking the House to consider. The following are Bills of which we desire to complete the stages

War Risks Insurance Bill.

Building Societies (No. 2) Bill.

British Overseas Airways Bill.

Senior Public Elementary Schools(Liverpool) Bill.

House of Commons Members Fund Bill.

We hope also to make progress with the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, which it to be read a Second time to-day.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: What about the Supplementary Estimates?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience I shall not keep him waiting very long. The Appropriation Bill and the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill are both annual Bills which must be passed. We may also have to consider Lords Amendments to the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill and other Bills, a draft Order made under the Ministry of Supply Act and an Order relating to the temporary barley scheme for the 1939 crop, proposed to be made when the Agricultural Development Bill becomes law, an Amendment to the Rumanian Clearing Office Order, and a number of other items, including Motions to approve additional Import Duties Orders and other necessary business. Then with regard to the question of Supply, a number of Supplementary Estimates have been presented, but most of them arise out of legislation which has been considered this Session. We have had, out of the 20 allotted days, so far 11 days, and, therefore, nine days still remain. In considering the Parliamentary programme—

Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is against the Standing Orders to take Supplementary Estimates on Supply days?

The Prime Minister: There are ways and means of dealing with matters of that kind, if not dealt with before. In considering the condition of the Parliamentary programme I have had in mind what I think to be the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House, namely, to avoid, if possible, sitting over August Bank Holiday. [Hon. Members: "No."] There are some hon. Members, apparently, who are thirsting for work and do not want to take any holiday at all.

Viscountess Astor: Ask them to stand up.

The Prime Minister: I do not know how long a holiday it is possible: for the House to have, but the sooner we can begin it, the longer it is likely to be. If the proposal that I put forward is accepted, I hope it may be possible to take the Motion for the Summer Recess on Friday, 4th August. Let me consider for a moment what we have in front of us. After to-day, until Friday, 4th August, there are 10 whole days and three Fridays available, equivalent to 111/2 whole days. It is clearly impossible to pass the essential legislation I have mentioned and to adjourn on 4th August if we have to give time for all the remaining Supply days, because the completion of the business of Supply in the nine clays which still remain, with the Appropriation Bill and the Motion for the Summer Adjournment, would exhaust the whole of the time available. It is for that reason, therefore, that I am asking the House to forgo four alloted days for Supply this Session. If we do that we believe that we shall have sufficient margin for consideration of the necessary business, although some of the Bills that I have mentioned are not yet before the House and it is not easy to estimate how much time they will require.
In order to complete the statement I would like to read to the House a list of the other Bills before Parliament which we are proposing to postpone until the Autumn: All stages to the following Bills:

Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) Bill and a similar Bill for Scotland,

Deer and Ground Game Scotland)Bill,

India and Burma (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill,

Official Secrets Bill,

all of which come from another place. Then there are the Report and Third Reading of:

The Criminal Justice Bill.

There are also Bills now in another place:

The Poultry Industry Bill,

Water Undertakings Bill,

and we shall, of course, have to consider the Report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act and bring forward a


Motion to approve the recommendations of that Committee.

Mr. Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned my Bill for the amendment of the Pensions Act. Are the Government not to give time for it?

The Prime Minister: For purposes of greater convenience, I was confining myself to Government Bills.

Mr. Thorne: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was going to carry on a number of Bills into the Autumn. Does that mean that we are having no General Election?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is one of the oldest Members of the House, and probably knows more about general elections than anyone else.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that the House should proceed with all stages of the Bill which is to follow immediately, or will that Measure be held over until the Autumn?

The Prime Minister: As regards the Shipping (Assistance) Bill, I have already said that we want to make progress with that Bill, and the Second Reading is being taken to-day. I have put before the House quite frankly the position as regards congestion of business and the proposal which we are putting forward in order to enable the House to rise on 4th August. I dislike very much having to introduce a measure of this kind. I regards it as one which is entirely exceptional, and only to be justified by exceptional circumstances. But I must say that, in this abnormal period to which I have referred, and in view of the extra work that has necessarily been placed upon the House, it seems to me that the measure is justified.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I feel quite certain that the Prime Minister will expect no sympathy from me, nor will he expect any approval from me, this afternoon. He quoted precedents, but those precedents are not applicable to-day, and, although he has said that we are not living quite in times of peace, had Government business been better organised we should not have found ourselves in this most deplorable situation. All that the

right hon. Gentleman is doing is, with his usual generosity, to steal time that belongs rightfully to the Opposition. Just as, nearly a year ago, he tried to save Britain by sacrificing Czechoslovakia, now he tries to save his own political skin by sacrificing the time of the Opposition. This, however, is a very serious occasion. It may be justifiable in time of war, or when there is, as was the case in 1929, an impending General Election, that there should be some agreement between the parties, in order that they may get on with the fight, to reduce the number of Supply days; but this situation is an entirely new precedent, and one is entitled to ask, on an occasion like this, what is to prevent any future Government, after frittering away the time of the House of Commons or dealing at a later stage of the Session with subjects which they ought to have foreseen but never did foresee, from asking for a reduction in the number of Supply days and thereby curtailing free discussion in this House?
This House is not yet the Fascist Grand Council; this House is not the kind of assembly that sometimes meets in Berlin at the beck of Herr Hitler; this is a free Parliament, and long may it remain so. Members of this House have their rights, and the Opposition, as an integral part of our Parliamentary system, has its rights also. Those rights are being filched from us to-day by the Motion which we are now debating. The Motion has, moreover, this deeper significance. The infringement of those ancient rights of the Opposition to its limited opportunities for discussion means a sacrifice of that liberty of expression which is the very foundation of our democratic system. I have no doubt that Herr Goebbels will make the most of this.[Laughter.] Of course he will. I cannot even now refer in public to the spineless character of this Government without its being broadcast in Germany. But it is a serious thing when the Mother of Parliaments is asked—at a critical time, it is true—by a majority on the other side of the House to sacrifice the rights of the minority on this side.
We have not been a fractious Opposition. Had we been sitting on the benches opposite, and had hon. Members who now sit on that side been sitting over here, we should not have got away so easily with a proposal of this kind. We have never


opposed for the mere sake of opposition; we have reserved all our guns for matters which we regarded as matters of substance. We might have made the life of the Prime Minister and the Patronage Secretary even harder than we have done, and I am wishing now that we had. We have honestly tried to play a square and fair game, provided that we were able to deal with problems which we regarded as problems of substance. Now, having been as kind as we have, having been as thoughtful as we have, four days are going to be stolen from us.

Mr. Kirk wood: By a lot of robbers.

Mr. Greenwood: That is precisely what I say. It is all the harder because the mess into which the Government have fallen is not due to us; it is due to them. I would ask the House to consider what is the situation now. It is the middle of July, and there is very little time before the Summer Adjournment. There are still very important aspects of national administration which ought to be discussed in this Chamber, and which, if the Motion is passed, we shall inevitably be debarred from raising. Many Departments whose work we wish to bring under review and criticism will be able to escape the searchlight of this House because of the Motion that is now before us.
There are other grave and important questions outstanding which it is necessary that the House should discuss before it rises, and an official Opposition has certain rights in this matter. If we were to ask responsibly and seriously for a day's Debate on some big issue of primary importance, His Majesty's Government would not, I am sure, think of denying us that right. Four days are being stolen from us, and it looks as though an attempt will be made to steal from us the exercise of our right to demand days for issues of very grave importance, but I want to tell the House that, whether it is 4th August or not, if we feel called upon to censure His Majesty's Government, that Censure Motion will go down on the Paper. On the point with regard to 4th August, which seems to be some sort of mystic date that is circulating among Members of the House, I would ask, in view of the abnormal times—the Prime Minister

himself used that term twice—why should there be such unseemly haste to bring this part of the Session to an end on 4th August? Why not—and I say this with the greatest reluctance myself—why not take a little longer in August? I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite would be prepared to go to some personal inconvenience in this matter as long as they got on the grouse moors on 12th August. That, at least, would give us another week, and, if that were convenient to hon. Members opposite, we on this side would willingly accept it.
The Motion on the Paper is really a confession of the Government's ineptitude and short-sightedness. I have here a copy of the King's Speech read by you, Mr. Speaker, in this House on 8th November last, outlining the Government's programme for the Session. I remember that, when I heard it first in another place and when I heard it in this Chamber, I said to myself, "This looks like a lean year." There was not very much in the King's Speech. The Government had not foreseen, as they ought to have foreseen, the trend of events. The keynote of the King's Speech was the spirit of international friendliness following upon Munich. It was on that sandy foundation that the Government built their year's work, and we are being asked to pay now for a foreign policy which on that side of the House has been scrapped and can never be rehabilitated. The King's Speech itself referred specifically to only two major measures— first, the Criminal Justice Bill, and secondly, Measures dealing with agriculture. One of these latter was produced, namely, the Milk Bill. It had to be withdrawn most ignominiously, and the Government had to think again. [Interruption.] It meant a casualty in the Government's ranks, but that is another matter; the Minister disappeared. I mention that to show hat the Government's programme was ill thought out. Cotton was referred to, but there was no definite mention of legislation. Other minor Measures were referred to which have been proceeded with. But, as the Session grew on, as the failures of last year became more and more apparent, as the Government were compelled completely to reverse their foreign policy, a new situation arose, new issues arose, new legislation was introduced unexpectedly,


over-night, and the King's Speech was dead.
We have been working now for many weeks, not on the King's Speech, but on an improvised King's Speech which has never received the assent of this House, and which consists almost entirely of so-called emergency Measures. I have no sympathy with the Prime Minister or with the Cabinet, but I confess to very considerable sympathy with the Patronage Secretary. The Patronage Secretary, faced with this King's Speech, prepares his programme, and then, day after day, there is hurled at him Bill after Bill for which he has to find time. I am certain he is the unhappiest man who sits on the Government Front Bench. The circumstances we are placed in now prove that he is the hardest-worked of them, and that is because the members of the Cabinet have not done their work effectively.

Mr. Buchanan: He is to blame; he picks the Cabinet.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not corroborate that, because I am not in the secrets of the Conservative party.

Mr. Buchanan: If you look at them you can see that that is true.

Mr. Greenwood: We have had a number of major Bills to which no reference whatever was made in the King's Speech. The Prime Minister has referred to one or two of them. There was the Military Training Bill and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill—for which, let me remind the House, there has still been no mandate from the people. They were done hurriedly and without proper consideration, creating increasing difficulties for the Government. They are examples of legislation of an ill-considered kind. We had a Ministry of Supply Bill. The Prime Minister quoted that as an emergency Measure. We had been pressing for that kind of thing for three years and more. There was no more real urgency for it this Session than there was last Session or the previous Session. The necessity for it does not arise out of the critical international situation, but out of the need for national organisation. One would have thought that this Government, which has been in office for three years, would have realised before 8th November last that a Ministry of Supply Bill was

necessary. I welcome that Measure, for what it is worth—not that it is worth very much—but it cannot be described as an emergency Measure. We have had a Camps Bill, which was welcomed on this side so far as it went. It was unmentioned in the King's Speech, yet it ought to have been in the minds of the Government before last November. There was the Civil Defence Bill. I should have thought that in the King's Speech there might have been some reference to this matter. The question of Civil Defence was referred to only in the most guarded terms:
 The problems of Civil Defence, including that of the effective utilisation of the resources of the nation for national voluntary service, will in future receive the undivided attention of a Minister, the Lord Privy Seal.
At that time the Government did not understand even the beginning of Civil Defence. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the days that have been spent in the House on various Bills, but look at the days on which, for three years and more, we have been pressing for effective measures to be taken for the protection of the civil population in the event of war. Yet there is not a mention of the matter in the King's Speech. The Government ought to have known that they were going to do something, and they should have said so in the programme which was outlined for the year. I should have thought that the British Overseas Airways Bill might have been foreseen before 8th November. So I could go on, referring to one Bill after another which finds no mention in the King's Speech and which has since been conceived in haste and brought forward in this House without adequate discussion. This is a medley of a programme, made up of things that the Government thought of at first and things that they thought of afterwards.
While I realise the gravity of the international situation, my view is that His Majesty's Government ought to have foreseen in these circumstances, which to-day are no different fundamentally from what they were a year ago, the necessity for a lot of the legislation which they have dumped upon this House at short notice. It is important that His Majesty's Government should keep a balance between major Bills necessitated by international circumstances and other major Measures which are concerned with our social progress at home. While the Government


have wasted time with a large number of Bills of relatively small importance, we have had nothing done for the future problem of unemployment, which can be prepared for only now, and nothing done about the distressed areas; there has been a flat refusal to do anything about one of the biggest issues before the people to-day, that of pensions for the aged; we have been refused even minor concessions, which have been agreed to on all sides of the House, for the purpose of remedying anomalies in workmen's compensation pending the report of the Royal Commission. We have had discussions running into the night; we have had the House on occasions rising earlier than many contemplated. I do not like to quote the Book of Common Prayer, but there is a passage in it which I will begin and which I will leave other hon. Members to finish:
 We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us.
I will not conclude it, but it seems applicable to the work of the Government in the present Session.

An Hon. Member: "Miserable sinners."

Mr. Greenwood: We are merely reaping the price which is inevitable from Rip van Winkles in office. They are always at least three years behind; that is their intellectual time lag. My old friend Sidney Webb, now Lord Passfield, proved conclusively that it took 19 years to get a Tory to translate an idea into action. I am not putting the period at as long as that, but it is true that we are suffering from this tardiness on the part of the Government to face these big issues which confront all of us. Attention has been drawn to the fact that it is three years since the Government gave an undertaking to see that profiteering in war work should be, not prohibited—they did not go as far as that—but substantially limited. Nothing effective has been done —not even under the Ministry of Supply Bill—nor will it be done. Why should this House, why should we on this side, have to be sacrificed because of the lethargy of people who sit on the Government benches? Since 1935 the Government have shirked their responsibilities. They have accepted them when they were forced upon them by public insistence,

but they have been unwilling to take action, with the result that we have got to this frightful state of congestion.
I must, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, make a most: emphatic protest against this unprecedented outrage upon Parliamentary practice and tradition, and this curtailment of the ancient freedom of Members of this House. It must be clear, even to hon. Members opposite, if they do think, that the indigestion from which the Government arc now suffering is due to their ill living. It is due to the fact that they have not taken sufficient exercise in the past. They are paying the proper price, and, unfortunately, we have to suffer with them. I have no wish to prolong the Debate on this question; we should prefer the time graciously accorded to us henceforth by His Majesty's Government to be spent on those great issues which still remain to be dealt with by this House before it rises. I want to make it clear that, as long as there is public business to be done in this House, we are prepared to stay here to do it. We shall not acquiesce in this action of the Government, because we do not wish to create a new and dangerous precedent in this House. We shall not acquiesce in it, partly for that reason, but partly also because we cannot accept a proposal which will allow them to scuttle away from awkward criticism and shelve troublesome problems. When this Debate concludes I and my hon. Friends shall be very glad to vote against the Motion.

4.44 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I listened with pleasure, and, indeed, if I may say so, not without relief, to the speech of the acting-Leader of the Opposition for Dame Rumour, that lying jade, had been whispering through the Lobbies of the House of Commons that the Opposition were not going to Divide against the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman's speech has given that rumour its quietus. I listened to him with pleasure for another reason, and that was that, if we cannot persuade the Government at this late hour to abandon their ill-conceived proposal to rob the Op position of the opportunities given by these four Supply days, which rightly belong to them, for criticism of the executive and control of the Departments, at least the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that his party repudiate and condemn this precedent.
The Prime Minister made a persuasive speech. He pointed to the congestion of business and to a large extent the acting-Leader of the Opposition has disposed of that argument. A great deal of the business recently brought before the House ought to have been in the King's Speech. My hon. Friends and myself called for the establishment of the Ministry of Supply in an Amendment we moved to the Address in November. The congestion is largely due to the mismanagement of Government business, but at the same time we must realise that a great deal of it is due to events over which the Government have no control, and we must realise, too, that the Ministers are working under a great strain at the present time. The Prime Minister was good enough to pay a tribute to all parties in the House for the cooperation they had given to the Government in the passage of certain indispensable legislation, and in response I would like to repeat what I have said in this House often before, that it is not only his own supporters who admire the assiduity and the courtesy with which the Prime Minister discharges the functions of Leader of the House. But while that is true, it is my contention that Members of all parties in this House as Private Members ought to join together to resist the encroachments of the Executive upon the rights of Parliament, and never more than now, when we see the principles of democracy so widely challenged.
When the Prime Minister first announced his proposal to the House at Question Time two days ago I asked about precedents, and he said that he would tell us what the precedents were when he made his speech in this Debate. We have heard his speech, and it transpires that there is no precedent in peace time for the taking of these Supply days except by the general consent of all parties of the House—none. This is the first time that it has been done, and it is a very grave encroachment indeed for the Executive to make upon the rights of Parliament. The nearest approach to a precedent is the precedent of 1929, but I would ask hon. Members, and especially hon. Members opposite, to remember what Lord Baldwin said about that precedent when he announced the General Election in 1935. Speaking on that occasion he was defending the decision

to have a General Election in the winter, and he said:
 You find that in nearly the last 40 years the only exception to that rule "—
that is, a General Election in the winter—
 was when I was Prime Minister and dissolved Parliament in May, I think it was, of 1929. To do that we had to present a non-contentious Budget, to get it through quickly and to ask the House of Commons—which is not a practice I ever propose repeating—to curtail discussions on Supply by a great deal and to give up one of their essential functions in order to allow the Election to take place." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1935; col. 154, Vol. 305.]
That was when there was a General Election, when it was necessary to have one and all parties agreed that it was necessary to have a General Election, and in spite of the agreement of all parties that in that situation it was essential to have a General Election in the summer, and the willingness of all parties to co-operate, Mr. Baldwin gave it as his opinion that it was a practice he would never repeat, even in those circumstances. How much less could he possibly approve, if he were in the House to-day, of this device of the Government in peace time robbing the Opposition of these Supply days without the consent of all parties, and, indeed, against the opposition of both opposing parties. What may happen in another Parliament when there is another Government perhaps of a more extreme complexion, either Right or Left, and when they find this precedent so readily to their hand in peace time? When sitting for an extra week in August would solve the difficulty, rather than take four extra days in August the Government just sweep away these four Supply days which belong to the Opposition.
There are very serious subjects for Debate on Estimates of important Departments which we have not discussed this year at all. Education, health, agriculture, the Dominions Office, police, are only some of them that could be mentioned. Scotland has only had one day; of all the Scottish Departments we have only discussed the Estimates of one. There is Home Defence. We have passed Home Defence legislation this Session, A.R.P. Measures, and so forth, and when they had a black-out in Chelsea a week or two ago, instead of having shelters to which to go, they had chalk lines on the pavement. Is it not time that we had a discussion on the preparations now being made for air-raid defence, and the chance.


to ask what action is being taken to employ workmen and capital, to construct works of defence against air attack? Food storage is another matter on which there is grave misgiving in many parts of the House. There is the question of Foreign Affairs, and we shall have to have a Debate on Foreign Affairs. Not all these subjects can be discussed when we are to have only four days to range over the whole of that vast field which I have indicated to the House. I have mentioned foreign affairs, and let me refer to what I said at Question Time in a supplementary question that when the negotiations with Russia are in the critical stage they have now reached, Parliament ought not to consent to separate with this great issue, on which peace and war may hang, still unsettled.

The Prime Minister: There are five days, not four.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am obliged to the Prime Minister for his correction. My hon. Friend tells me four and a-half days, to be accurate, but the House will not expect me to repeat that long catalogue of Estimates which still remains without discussion.
I am not contending this afternoon that the authority and influence of Parliament vary directly with the length of its sittings. That would be going very much too far, but the important thing is that Parliament should be sitting when great events are taking place which are exercising the minds of the public. My mind goes back to last year, and I remember the events which took place all through August and September; the mobilisation of great armies on the continent of Europe, and the feeling here that no counter action was being taken; and the impossibility of getting the House summoned until, eventually, at the end of September, we returned here to be confronted with surrender and humiliation. We do not want to be faced with that sort of situation again. Therefore, surely there are other steps which might be taken at the present time concerning arrangements for the recall of Parliament but to-day I will only, in passing, express the hope that some means will be found, if Parliament does rise at the beginning of August, of keeping the Government in touch with the feelings of Members in all

parts of the House in view of the possibility of serious events abroad.
Surely it is not necessary to take this great decision now and make this great and unprecedented encroachment upon the rights and privileges of Members of this House. Is it not possible to make a lesser one? Under the Standing Order all these Supply days have to be taken by 5th August. Would not the Prime Minister consider, in place of the Motion which is on the Order Paper, an Amendment to postpone these four additional Supply days until we return in September or October, as the case may be? I cannot understand why we are asked to take this big decision to-day. What is the hurry? Why should we not allow business to go on and see what the situation is at the beginning of August? It may be that the situation may be such that the Prime Minister would not wish the House to separate. We ought to leave the discussion of this Motion until the first week in August, at any rate, and proceed in the meantime with our work. On the one hand, there is the strong emotion in the hearts of all of us which the Prime Minister put in these words, '' The sooner we begin the holidays the longer they are likely to be," and that evokes a response from everyone of us, but against that surely it is not right, under that very natural human and possibly rather weak emotion, to sacrifice the right; of Parliament and to allow the Executive to take over these Supply days. It is more important for us to stay in our stations in these critical times to watch the course of events and these negotiations with Russia, and it is vital, in these times which are so dangerous to democracy that we should stand at our posts and exercise all our traditional rights of controlling the executive of this country.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I want to support the opposition to this Motion. It would be a very bad thing indeed if this House allowed this Motion to be passed to-day. The Prime Minister has produced precedents, and on every occasion when these precedents were made the House was informed that the purpose was not to constitute a precedent. I am sure the Prime Minister assures us of that to-day also, but when we look back, the things that were not to constitute a precedent always did constitute a precedent, and to-day the


circumstances provide less excuse than was the case on the previous occasions when this type of step was taken. Frankly, the only issue before us is, can we extend our Session for a few more days? I am just as keen on my holidays as anybody in this House, and I do not want to be a humbug about that. I remember a school story about a boy who was asked what a hypocrite was, and he said: "A hypocrite is a boy who goes to school with a smile on his face." I am not that particular kind of hypocrite, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) will remember that some 15 of us, because the House desired it, worked into August and over the Bank Holiday on the Official Secrets Inquiry. We were not unduly happy, but our consciousness of virtue carried us through, and although the House felt that the matter was very urgent, it is not being considered necessary to discuss our findings until next September.
I do not see why the House as a whole could not decide to continue for the other four days that belong to the Opposition for the purpose of examining the administration and public expenditure, as distinct from the work of legislation, and the work of checking administration and expenditure is as important a part of the work of the House of Commons as legislation. After all, what is there about having a holiday on this particular sacrosanct date, the first week of August? The banks have decided that it is a convenient quarter day for them. Is that any reason why we should go on holiday on that particular day? Glasgow Members are sitting here, but the whole of Glasgow is on holiday. The West of Scotland is on holiday. Our friends, relatives and families are away at the coast and are denied the privilege of our society. No doubt some of them are enjoying their holiday more because of that fact. Why should the first week of August be regarded as a time when we cannot sit? If the carrying through of our job decently necessitates another week, that other week should be given, and freely given.
I would not associate myself entirely with the line of criticism of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal party. I do not think it is a bad thing that, coming up through the House of Commons, there should be a tre-

mendous pressure of energy. Much rather would I have it that the House of Commons has too much coming through it than too little. At different times there have been protests about our being unable to have all the questions on the Paper answered and suggestions for limiting the right of questioning. I have never associated myself with those protests. I think it is a good thing that there should be this desire for activity. Similarly, I have heard protests about the impossibility of every speaker who wanted to get in getting in a particular Debate, and I have never associated myself with those protests, because I think it is a good and a healthy thing when we should be putting more questions than we can get answers to, and when we have more speeches that we want to deliver than we have the opportunity of delivering, and when there is more legislation to be dealt with and more desire for criticism of administration than the normal time allows. I think these are good things. They are the things that constitute the justification for a House of Commons.
I do not for a moment mean to suggest that I think the speeches that are delivered, or the questions that are asked, or the legislation that is introduced constitute the best use that the time could be put to, but the fact that the desire is there is a good thing and it should not be "cabined, cribbed and confined." On this matter back benchers on the Government side have as big an interest as Members on this side. We are the House of Commons, and we should not allow the executive to say to us, "You have had enough for this year, run away for your holidays, and leave the rest of it to us." We want to examine the affairs of certain Departments of State. There are four days which, according to the rules that govern our work here, we are entitled to have, and back benchers, if they are doing their duty, will refuse to give the Government what they are asking, and will insist that these additional four days be allowed to us to do the job we are sent here to do.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: I think it is an extraordinarily regrettable thing that the Government are finding themselves compelled to do. I am prepared to believe that in these very special circumstances


it may be necessary, but for the life of me I cannot comprehend how it has come about that we have already wasted half a day of Parliamentary time, and we may have to waste at least another half day, on discussing our pensions.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: For several reasons I have seldom felt so frightened in my life as now. In the first place, I have been semi-officially informed that it is only leaders of parties who ought to speak on these occasions. In the second place, I am afraid that what I have to say is going to be extremely unpopular. I object to this Motion on quite different grounds from those put forward by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition. I do not agree that the Government could have foreseen the necessity for the fresh legislation which has had to be put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said the Government had no mandate to introduce the Military Training Bill. That may be true. I certainly supported that Bill and I did what I could to anticipate it and to facilitate its passage. But, whether there was a mandate or not, I should not like to suggest that Hitler and Mussolini had any mandate from the electors of Great Britain for the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Albania. It partly derives from those causes that we had to pass greater measures of defence. Nor do I care particularly about the rights of the Opposition whether, in the language of the right hon. Gentleman, they be fractious or amenable.
What I try to care about as a back bencher is the power, the authority, and the sovereignty of Parliament, and also the security of Great Britain. We are asked to assent to the loss of four Supply days. What is the purpose of the Motion? It is proposed in order to get the House of Commons up for their holidays. The Prime Minister said—and with the greatest possible respect I agree with him—that we have worked very hard. With equally great respect, let me add that the notion of this House of Commons separating for a holiday for an indefinite period at this, the most critical moment in the last 25 years, seems to me nothing short of grotesque. Surely there is excellent reason at the very least

for adding four days to our Session before we separate. The long list of Government business which the Prime Minister read out seems an excellent reason for abbreviating our holidays at this end. It is just upon this kind of lull in which we are about to indulge that aggressors abroad always count. We all remember how we separated last year in the sunshine and were only brought back at what seemed to be the moment when we were standing upon the edge of war. Then it was too late the House of Commons to exercise its immemorial duty of controlling and influencing the policy of the executive. I do not want to go into the morals and the merits of the policy pursued a little later than this a year ago, but during August and September the executive did not cover itself with glory in the; sense that its policy was in any way permanent or successful. I would remind the House that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper), we have to-day the same Government which from March last year to March of this year was so disastrously hoodwinked and outmanoeuvred by Hitler.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): This is not the occasion for starting a discussion on the record of the Government.

Mr. Adams: With very great respect, the discussion proceeded along these lines before you succeeded Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and, moreover, I am merely trying to illustrate what may be the disastrous consequences, not to this House but to the country and to the Empire, if we separate and have no longer the power of controlling the actions of the Executive. I hope the Prime Minister will believe me when I say I am fully convinced in my own mind that, if aggression comes, he intends to resist. But does Hitler? That seems to me to be the point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hive already reminded the hon. Member once that this is not the occasion for discussing foreign affairs.

Mr. Adams: We do not know for how long the House is going to separate on 4th August. It may be for a month, or six weeks or two months, bat I respectfully suggest that the least duty imposed


upon the House is to see that it is sitting during a period which is bound to be critical. That much we owe to the honour of the British name, to the security of our fellow-countrymen, and to the new temper of resistance which is now inspiring those who sent us here to represent them.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Mander: Whatever the leaders of parties may do to-day, it is the duty of back benchers to protest in the most vigorous manner against the action of the Government in depriving them unnecessarily of the four days to which they are entitled. Is it suggested that the world is coming to an end on 4th August? Why can we not go on sitting and conducting our business, as we are perfectly willing to do? I cannot see any justification for it. I am going to advance reasons why I think Parliament should be kept sitting as long as possible—certainly for these four days—because of the dangers of the international situation, and the opportunities that may lie before the Government when they are not under Parliamentary control and may act in a manner which they would not do if Parliament were sitting. I have no doubt that the Government themselves would be quite glad to be uncontrolled, because they have been driven into their policy very largely as the result of Parliamentary pressure, but I submit, as a reason for keeping the House sitting, that there will be no confidence, when the House adjourns on 4th August, in a Government which is still without the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Epping (Mr. Churchill), Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper).
I am sure that the view I have expressed is the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of the country, as was evidenced at a recent by-election. The Prime Minister said that North Cornwall was to be a vote of confidence in him. Here is the vote of confidence in the presence of my hon. Friend, the Liberal Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin). There is not that confidence felt in the Government in the House or in the country which might be achieved if different arrangements were made. I am endeavouring to keep within the Rules of Order and at the same time to put forward a point of view which seems to me very important. I hope the Opposition

will, if they think it necessary, feel perfectly free to put down a Vote of Censure and, if need be, on four days in order to take the time of which the Government are compulsorily trying to deprive them. We might get over this difficulty of keeping the House in control by sitting once a week throughout August and September, possibly just formally, but that is a matter which we could deal with on some other occasion.
The Prime Minister dealt with various Measures that are to be postponed till the autumn. Some of them are very important, and I hope the Government intend to put them through. I hope they are not going to run away from the Criminal Justice Bill. They show signs of it, but it would be very deplorable if they became frightened and abandoned that Bill. Naturally, the Prime Minister mentioned only Bills in which he is interested as the head of the Government, but there are other Bills in which Private Members are interested, and which they would like to see discussed if time were available. That is another reason for not adjourning. One of my hon. Friends referred to his own Old Age Pensions Bill. Embarrassing as a discussion of that matter might be to the Government and hon. Members opposite, I am sure the country wants to have it discussed; certainly we are most anxious to discuss it on these benches. I have a Bill of my own which, however unpopular it may be amongst those mentioned in the recently published book, "Tory M.P.," I am sure finds a very large measure of support throughout the country. I refer to the Conscription of Wealth Bill, a subject which the Government have dealt with in a petty manner, totally inadequate to the occasion. That is another reason why the House should not adjourn, but should take the fullest opportunity of discussing all the matters that come before it. I do urge very strongly that we should not accept this Motion as a precedent, but that we should protest against it as being contrary to the practice of Parliament and wholly unnecessary with the months of August and September before us. I suggest that we should continue to perform our duties. Above all, the course of action suggested by the Government is undesirable because of the widespread distrust of the Prime Minister which still exists in the country.

Mr. Benn: I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Under the Standing Orders the position of Supplementary Estimates is very closely safeguarded. There are about £20,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates which we have not yet passed. Under the Standing Orders we are forbidden to consider these Supplementary Estimates on Supply days. I asked the Prime Minister what he proposes to do, and he made a reply about ways and means. I should be glad if, in view of this very drastic suspension of part of Standing Order No. 14, the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how he intends to deal with that part of the Standing Order which forbids us to take Supplementary Estimates on the remaining Supply days.

5.20 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I think it might be convenient if we now come to a decision on the Motion, seeing that we have very important legislation to discuss to-day. By the indulgence of the House I might say a few words in reply to what has been said. The hon. Member for West Leeds(Mr. V. Adams) stated that he had been semi-officially informed that it was inappropriate for back benchers to express any opinion upon this Motion. I do not know what was the source of that instruction, but it certainly did not come from this bench. The observations of the party Leaders opposite have referred not so much to the Motion but to the question whether it is proper for the House to have a holiday at all. I should like to confine my remarks solely to the Motion to reduce the number of Supply days. The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said there was no exact precedent for the Government's proposal, and he devoted some time to the precedent for cutting down Supply days in 1929. I thought it right to give the House that precedent for reducing the number of Supply days, but those hon. Members who heard me will recollect that I did not rest my case on the 1929 precedent. I do not think that is the nearest analogy to the present circumstances. In my view, the analogy of the War years is far more appropriate to the present position than anything that is based upon a desire for having an election.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition claimed that he and his party had not been obstructive and that

they had restricted their main opposition to matters of particular importance. I am not going to quarrel with him about that, and I certainly do not wish to make any complaint against the Opposition on that ground, but when he attempts to show that the whole of the congestion in the legislation this Session has been due to faults of omission on the part of the Government, I cannot accept that view. If the Government had foreseen all the actions that have been taken by the heads of other States and if they had prepared the necessary legislation and had put it into the King's Speech, that would not have given us any extra time. We should have been just as congested, and the only thing that it would have done would have been to induce the Government to ask private Members to give up their time on Fridays, as has often been done before, and on Wednesdays, too. W e have not done that this Session, except on one occasion, nor have we, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, forced Bills through the House. There was only one Bill, the Military Training Bill, which was the subject of a Guillotine Motion. I do not think the House has been unduly pressed in the matter of Guillotine Motions, or in the matter of sitting late.
Another question that has been put has been, why all this hurry? Why the 4th August? Why take the' particular date? It is perfectly true that we could take the full number of Supply days before the 5th August and put off legislation till afterwards, and then follow on after Bank Holiday, but I have in mind a consideration, which, although it does not particularly affect myself, must affect a good number of hon. Members, and that is that they like to be with their families during the holidays. The fact that Bank Holiday is a public holiday means that arrangements arc made in a great number of cases, sometimes beforehand, for families to take their holidays at that time. Whether the families can do without the fathers, I cannot say, but certainly a good many fathers would not like to miss the opportunity of being with their families.
The suggestion of postponing the Supply days until the autumn does not appear to me to be feasible, because if we did that we could not get the Appropriation Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that that course is not possible for us. In regard to the question put to me by the


right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) as to how we can defend this action in view of the Standing Order, I would remind him that this is not an innovation. It is nothing which has not been done by Governments before us, and we shall do as our predecessors have done.

Mr. Benn: Does that mean that on the remaining Supply days the right hon. Gentleman will propose the suspension of Section 2, Part 2, of Standing Order 14? Is there any precedent for that being done?

The Prime Minister: That was not in my mind.

Mr. Benn: How shall we take Supplementary Estimates unless the Standing Order which forbids them being taken on Supply days is suspended?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is a great authority on procedure, and I have no doubt that he has studied all the precedents. If he studies what his own Government did, he will probably find the precedent there.

Mr. V. Adams: Can the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to be able to inform

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[5.27 p.m.


Albery, Sir Irving
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hannah, I. C.


Allan, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Harbord. Sir A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S,)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Hely-Hutohinson, M. R.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Assheton, R.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buahan-


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cross, R. H.
Hapworth, J.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Crossley A. C.
Higgs, W. F.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
De Chair, S. S.
Holdsworth, H.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E. B. (Portsm'h)
De la Bere, R.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beechman, N. A.
Donner, P. W.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Burnett, Sir E. N.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Duggan, H. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hunloke, H. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter, T.


Braithwaite, J, Gurney (Holderness)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Brass, Sir W.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Emery, J. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kellett, Major E. o.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Soo'sh Univs.)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, WJ
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Bullock Capt. M.
Furness, S. N.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. 
Fyfe, D. P. M. 
Lamb, Sir J. Q. 


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) 
Lambert, Rt. Hon. o.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Latham, Sir P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gledhill, G.
Lees-Jones, J.


Carry R. A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Goldie, N. B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Levy, T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Liddall, W. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Lipson, D. L.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Little, J.


Christie, J. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Lloyd, G. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Loftus. P. C.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Hambro, A. V.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

us of the date when we shall be recalled in the normal course after the holiday?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot say.

Mr. Benn: What is this mysterious thing that the Labour Government did to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing mysterious about it. It was done over and over again.

Mr. Benn: What was it?

Question put,
That for the purpose of concluding the Business of Supply for the present Session, Standing Order No. 14 shall have effect as if in paragraph (1) Sixteen days were substituted for Twenty; as if in paragraph (6) the Fifteenth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph (7) the Sixteenth day were substituted for the Twentieth day so allotted; and that notwithstanding anything in the Standing Order a Friday sitting shall be equivalent to a single sitting on any other day.

The House divided: Ayes, 208;

Noes, 147.

Mabana, W. (Huddersfield)
Pilkington, R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. P J.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Porritt, R. W.
Spans, W. P.


MacDonald, sir Murdooh (Inverness)
Procter, Major H. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Radford, E. A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


McEwen, Cap). J. H. F.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Storey, S.


McKie, J. H.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Maonamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J,
Rankin, Sir R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Margesson, Capt. R(. Hon. H. D. R.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Markham, S. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Marsden, Commander A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Maxwell, Hon. S A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tryon, Major Rt Hon. G. C.


Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Wakefield, W. W.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wells, Sir Sydney


Munro, P.
Russel, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Salt, E. W.
Wilson, Ll.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
York, C


Palmer, G. E. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Young, A, S. L (Partick)


Patrick, C. M.
shute, Colonel Sir J. J.



Peake, O.
Smitherts, Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peat, C. U.
Snadden, W. McN.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain


Petherick, M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Dugdale.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, s.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Poole, C. C.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hardie, Agnes
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexandar, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Ammon, C. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bur[...], J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hopkin, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Hopkinson, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Horabin, T. L
Shinwell. E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J
Sllverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Bromfield, W.
John, W.
Sloan, A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Marioneth)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Collindridge, F.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Thorns, W.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G. 
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) 
Mander, G. le M. 
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C. 


Ede, J. C.
Marshall, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mathers, G.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Maxton, J.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmers)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilmot, John


Graham, D, M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Pearson, A.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.35 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I must apologise to the House that for the second time within a few days I have to explain another long and complicated Bill, but I can honestly assure hon. Members that in this case it hurts me more than it does them. I am unfortunate in being static while they have the privilege of being dynamic. Everyone will, I think, agree that a Bill of this kind is necessary; the only dispute between us will be as to the methods which are adopted. We all agree on the importance of the Mercantile Marine, none of us can be ignorant of the difficulties which it is now facing, and, therefore, we all feel that something has to be done to assist the Mercantile Marine in its struggle. It is therefore only on methods that we disagree. I do not think any words of mine are necessary to stress the importance to this country of our Merchant Navy. It has been done already by much more competent individuals, and I should not like to set the pedantic phrases of a mere politician against the purple passages of many poets. But there is one point in connection with the shipping industry which we must always bear in mind. In one sense, at any rate, it is unique.
There are a number of industries just as important, a number of industries which employ just as many men, and a number of industries whose diminution or disappearance would be staggering to the economy of the country, and would cause the gravest social consequences. But there is this difference about the shipping industry, that whereas the diminution or disappearance of other industries may be a catastrophe which we could survive, the disappearance of shipping would be vital, it would immediately reverse the progress of centuries and we should revert once again from an Empire to an island. It is no wonder, therefore.

that an industry so vital as this should have already occupied a considerable part of the attention of the House during the course of the last few years. Hon Members will recollect that in 1934 we were debating a Measure dealing with the shipping industry, part of which was on similar lines to a part of the Bill we are considering to-day. I have taken the precaution of looking up the Debate which took place upon the Bill in 1934. The Government's case was then put very admirably by the Lord President of the Council, my predecessor at the Board of Trade, and a man with a great knowledge of the industry, and his Parliamentary Secretary, now the Minister of Supply, who is eloquent, I believe, in no fewer than nine languages.
I looked up the Debate for the purpose of seeing whether I could find some good extracts from it, which other people would not recognise, for my own speech, but having looked at it I read on with considerable interest. One thing in particular struck me about that Debate, and that was the very great difference between that period and the present. That Debate ranged entirely on economic lines. We have to-day to face and discuss very much the same economic questions which were discussed in 1934, although there has been a change in degree. People talked in that Debate, as they will in this, of the growth of foreign competition, the direct or indirect aid by subsidies from the State, of the over supply of world shipping and the under supply of world trade, and of the difficulties of maintaining a relatively high standard of conditions in our Mercantile Navy in the face of low standards and Government assistance in many other countries. Most of the arguments which were used then still hold good to-day and justify much of the Bill which is now being considered.
But there has been one very great change in the situation to-day as compared with that of 1934. Whereas then it was possible to discuss this question as though it was an economic question alone, to-day over the whole of our Debate must lie the shadow of a possible great national emergency. To-day we cannot think of the shipping industry of this country only as a desirable asset in time of peace; we have to think of it as a vital service in time of war, of war which may be on us


within measurable time. That thought, to my mind, is a reinforcement for the proposals in the Bill which are old and a justification for the other proposals in the Bill which are new. The history of the shipping industry since the Debate in 1934, although it reveals very considerable superficial fluctuations, has shown little change in underlying fundamental conditions. Throughout the years 1935 and 1936, when world trade was slightly on the increase, the conditions of shipping tended slightly to improve, and with the help of the shipping subsidy in those two years the Mercantile Marine was, at any rate, able to survive.
In 1937 we had a complete reversal of conditions. It was a good year for shipping. Freights rose rapidly and laid-up tonnage in this country was reduced to a very low figure, and for the first time for many years orders flowed freely into British yards. If these conditions had continued there would have been no necessity for me to introduce a Bill of this character. Unfortunately, that prosperity was only a flash in the pan. There is no need to recount to hon. Members the economic causes which brought it to an end; the recession in America, the fall in commodity prices and consequent shrinkage in world trade. But, after the bright year of 1937, by the spring of last year, although perhaps we were not back as low as 1934, we were back to a position when the industry was faced once again with great difficulties.
Of course, all the time that these fluctuations were going on, the underlying factors remained the same. Even when there was increasing world trade, as there was between the years 1934 and 1938, the increase was not at all commensurate with the increase that was taking place in world shipping. One has only to look at the figures of international shipbuilding, not to wonder, but I think to be certain, that that abnormal increase in world shipping has not been due entirely to economic motives or economic considerations in the countries where it has taken place. Since 1914, the merchant navy of Japan has been more than trebled, the merchant navy of Italy has nearly trebled, and Germany, after the practical extinction of the whole of her merchant navy, has now regained the position she held in 1914. I wonder

whether any hon. Member will believe that building to that extent, at a time when there was no corresponding increase in the total quantity of world trade, has been actuated by economic considerations.
It has been our attempt and our desire in past years to do what we could to adapt the quantum of world shipping to the quantum of world trade, because it is only if we get some such equilibrium between the two that we can hope for prosperous conditions for the shipping industries of the world as a whole. Of course, to try to adapt those two quantums does not simply mean that other countries are to have what they like, and that this country is to have what they leave. Over the last few years, it has been clear that the attempt which has been made to settle this question by co-operation, by international reasonableness, has failed; and as it has failed, even though that failure may be only temporary, neither this Government nor any Government could stand by and make no attempt to assist our industry to meet the subsidised and unfair competition which, very often for motives other than economic, is being set against v s the world over.
It is for that reason that, last summer, when the position of the Merchant Navy was already getting difficult, in a discussion on the Estimates for the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, when appeals were made from all sides as to what was going to be done to assist British shipping, I said that it was for the ship owners themselves, in consultation, to put forward proposals, and that the Government would consider those proposals, when they were put forward, with every sympathy. As a result of that statement, the shipowners as a whole got together, and worked out proposals for the assistance which could be given to the industry. Those proposals were submitted towards the end of last year, and were accompanied by a wealth of detail and argument in substantiation both of the difficulties with which the shipowners were confronted and of the proposals which they had to make It his not been possible for the Government to accept the shipowners' proposals in every particular, but on the whole they form the basis of the proposals that are now before the House. The Government have had to make certain additions to these proposals.


After all, the shipowners were concerned only with the peace-time activities of the shipping industry and were putting forward proposals which would enable the industry to run under those conditions. The Government could not afford to be unmindful of the possibility of a national emergency, and therefore, we have added in this Bill proposals which are intended, at the earliest possible moment, to bring to our Merchant Fleet those additions which we believe to be essential for national security in time of war.
If hon. Members will turn to the Bill, they will see that in it are contained five separate proposals either of assistance to shipping or, through shipping, to shipbuilding. The first proposal, contained in Clause I, is a proposal for the renewal of the subsidy in respect of tramp shipping on the lines of that subsidy with which the House is already familiar. The details and machinery of this proposed subsidy follow very closely the details and machinery of the subsidies in 1935 and 1936, and therefore, I think it will be necessary for me only to point out to the House the differences between the new proposal and the old ones which were then in force. In the first place, the annual amount of the subsidy is different. Under the old proposal it was limited to £2,000,000, and under this proposal, it is £2,750,000. The basis for that increase is the very heavy increase that has taken place in the costs of the shipowners between 1934 and now. It is not only an increase in costs caused by an increase in wages and an improvement of conditions, including a shortening of hours, but an increase which is represented by almost all the material which the shipowners have to buy and the cost of very nearly all their stores. On the figures that were submitted, a good case was made out to show that a subsidy of the figure now proposed under new conditions is about equivalent to the subsidy that was previously paid under the conditions which then prevailed.
The second difference is that the subsidy provided for in the Bill is definitely granted for a period of five years. Before, it was left to an annual arrangement, subject to renewal every year by the House. If this subsidy and the confidence and competitive power which it gives to this section of the industry are to be used at all for the

purpose of allowing them to reorganise and to give us any hope that, at the end of the period, they will be able to maintain themselves without Government aid, it is essential that they should be assured of this assistance for a long enough period to work out the possibilities of co-operation and reorganisation, and for the proposals to be put into effect, and, if they have results, to show those results before the period of the subsidy comes to an end.
As under the old subsidy, this new subsidy is payable only when the freight rate index is below a certain figure. Hon. Members will recollect that under the old subsidy, the datum line—the line at which the subsidy began to decrease—was 92. Under the new proposal it will be 95, based on the facts that not only have costs increased during the period, but undoubtedly the amount of assistance given to their national shipping by other Governments has increased. At 96 the subsidy begins to run off, until it disappears at the figure of 105. It is, of course, extremely difficult to come to a definite conclusion as to the point in the freight rate index at which the bulk of shipping is able to pay depreciation, the point at which it starts to make a profit, and the point at which the profit becomes large; but certainly in present conditions, although of course conditions may well change during the course of five years, my view is that, with the freight rate index at 96, the great bulk of shipping should be able to pay full depreciation and that by 105, when the subsidy runs off, the great bulk of shipping should be, in fact, making some profit. I am not at all ashamed of the fact that it should be making a profit, because if our idea of a more permanent future is that we should attract fresh capital into the industry, that the industry should be in a position, as we want it to be, to build new ships and keep the Merchant Marine up to date, it is quite clear that, unless possibilities, at any rate, are left of a profit being made, that capital is unlikely to be attracted.
There is one novel feature of the sliding scale for the payment of the subsidy which is due to the fact that this subsidy is to be payable for a longer period. Obviously, it would be quite inequitable if, for instance, the shipowners had two or three years in succession like 1937, which obviously left them with a very


considerable margin of resistance against bad times in future, and then immediately they had one bad year, the subsidy became payable again. Therefore, we have made a provision either for an exceptionally good year or for an exceptionally bad year, either of which will have its effect upon the datum line at which the subsidy will be payable in subsequent years. The payment of this subsidy is subject to certain conditions which hon. Members will see set out in the White Paper. In page 9 of the White Paper, there is a condition with regard to the observance of National Maritime Board Agreements whenever applicable, a condition that British crews must be employed whenever they are available, and finally, a condition with regard to the employment of Lascars. The object of this new condition is that it will not be possible for a ship enjoying this subsidy to employ Lascars at Lascar rates under conditions or in places in which up to now it has not been customary for Lascars to be employed. It will not be possible for them to extend the normal customary scope of the employment of Lascars at the moment and to get subsidy. Included also in the White Paper, in page 15, are the shipowners' proposals for giving effect to the conditions I have laid down, that not only must they co-operate with each other, but in the period of relief granted by the subsidy they must make an effort to organise the industry on a sounder basis and be able, at the end of that period, again to stand on their own feet.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Float on their own bottoms would be better.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's simile, although perhaps rather coarser than mine, is certainly more apt. One of the proposals deals not only with internal but also international co-operation. We are anxious that international cooperation to adjust the supply of shipping to the demand should be pursued, but we are not prepared to say that arrangements for international co-operation should be at the expense only of the shipping of this country. If international co-operation means that the merchant shipping industries of other countries as well as our own will make sacrifices we shall certainly support the shipowners in any attempt of that kind which they make,

but we should not find it in the national interest to try to force a scheme of international co-operation or international rationalisation which was solely at the expense of the prosperity of our own industry.
The second scheme in the Bill is also one with which the House is familiar, as it has been dealt with in a previous Measure. It is a loan scheme for the assistance of shipbuilding. The assistance given under the earlier Measure proved extremely useful and I think something like 50 ships were built. Hon. Members will recollect that the basis of the old scheme was, "Scrap and build." Under the new scheme it will be a case of "Build, but do not scrap." The difference is that in the earlier case what the Government had in mind was the purely economic consideration. At a time when, as I have said, the supply of shipping was in excess of the demand they did not wish to stimulate artificially an increase in that shipping. Of course conditions are different to-day. With the possibility of an emergency in our minds, it is essential that we should have the maximum size of merchant fleet possible and nobody could suggest that it would be wise at the moment to scrip one ship for every one we built.
To some extent the economic difficulty is met by a proposal later in the Bill for the creation of a war reserve of tonnage by which ships, though not scrapped, will be withdrawn from the normal channel of economic competition. Contracts for cargo liners, tramps or coastal vessels entered into after 28th March of this year —the day on which I nude the statement on these proposals in the House—will be available for this loan. The amount is limited to £10,000,000 and as regards the period for which it will be available, a vessel will be eligible if the keel has been laid within two years of the date of the passing of the Act. The rate of interest on the loan will have to be fixed by the Treasury in respect of each particular loan at the time at which it is made. Those receiving loans will be under the same conditions as to co- operation as those receiving the tramp shipping subsidy and will, therefore, be bound in the same way with regard to the agreements of the National Maritime Board. This part of the Measure will not apply to Northern Ireland because they have already a simi-


lar scheme in force there for their shipyards.
The third scheme is one of grants for shipbuilding. Everyone must have been concerned at the grave and rapid falling off in shipbuilding orders during last year. As I said before, during the latter part of 1936 and during 1937 shipbuilding orders were received in a volume which was, I think, the greatest since 1929 and for a short time a measure of prosperity was enjoyed by our shipbuilders. The falling off since then has been very rapid and very heavy. This raises two very grave questions in relation to a possible emergency. First there is the obvious fact that failure to build, while, all the time, ships are becoming out of date and are being scrapped, means the progressive weakening of our merchant navy. But from the point of view of security there is an even graver effect. The adequacy of the Merchant Navy in time of war must be dependent, to some extent, on the ability to maintain a satisfactory rate of building during the first year of war and in order to be able to maintain a satisfactory rate of building in the first year of war, it is necessary to have skilled shipyard workers available when the emergency comes. One of the problems of this rapid decline in the number of orders which are being placed and the possibility of even more shipyards being emptied, is that we might have a further dispersal of the body of skilled shipyard labour which had been re-collected by the better conditions of 1936 and 1937. This dispersal, if continued, might lead to a situation in which, if an emergency occurred, if war began and if it were necessary to accelerate building, all those skilled men would be scattered over the country and engaged in other jobs, and it would be impossible to bring them back again into the shipyards.
In the ordinary course of economics, without having regard to this question of an emergency, the Government would have been content to allow the measures already taken by them for the assistance of shipping to have their inevitable effect upon shipbuilding. If, in fact, the proposal for the tramp shipping subsidy puts tramp shipping in a satisfactory economic position, and if the proposal later in the Bill for a liner defence fund enables the liner services to be maintained and expanded, then, automatically, after a

period, this will react upon the number of shipbuilding orders placed by those shipping companies. But this is a matter in which time is of the essence of the contract and an order for a ship to-day, is worth twice an order which may be placed a year or two hence. The Government felt it necessary to offer some special inducement to make certain that the yards which were emptying so rapidly should be filled now, rather than in a year or two. It was felt that the additions to the Merchant Navy should come now in anticipation of any possible emergency, and not later.
Therefore, this part of the Bill is, frankly, of an emergency character. I justify it entirely on the ground that it is necessary from the point of view of national security to have this increase in building now, and the proposals in the Bill represent, in the view of the Government, the best way of obtaining it. Under these proposals, a sum of £500,000 a year will be available for five years as grants to shipowners in aid of orders placed for shipbuilding It will be confined mainly to the type of ship which we need most in time of war, to the cargo liner and the tramp classes, those in regard to which there would be most cause for anxiety, should an emergency occur. The announcement that this grant in aid of shipbuilding would be available was made on 28th March. On nth April I sent out a notice asking that preliminary notifications of orders which were being placed should be communicated to the Board of Trade. The rush of new orders was so great that on 28th April it was necessary to suspend the acceptance of any further applications in respect of tramps at once and in respect of cargo lines as from the following day, 29th April.
At the same time as this suspension was announced, as hon. Members will see in the annexe to the scheme in the White Paper, a statement was made as to the maximum rates which would be payable in respect of each class of ship. Of course, the rate of grant is subject to the overriding condition that the total must be within the £500,000. If the amount of orders received on the maximum rate would bring the total above that sum, then the rate of grant would have to be scaled down to bring the total within that limit. In the period during which this offer was open, orders were actually


placed for 37 cargo liners with a total gross tonnage of 210,000, and no tramps with a total tonnage of 495,000. At the same time there was notifications of proposed orders representing another 300,000 tons bringing the total, either definitely ordered or of which preliminary notification had been given, to over 1,000,000 tons. It will be necessary now to consider those individual applications to see whether each one of them is within the scope of the proposal in the Clause and whether it represents a definite order. We shall then be in a position to see whether the maximum rates stated in the White Paper are appropriate. If not, it will be necessary to scale them down to bring the total sum payable within the £500,000 a year. If, on the other hand, the whole sum is not required, then it will be possible to open the list for further applications until the new applications bring the total up to the figure of £500,000 a year.
There are one or two conditions attached to the receipt of this grant to which I would call attention. First, any ship in respect of which grant is received must remain on the United Kingdom register for a minimum of 10 years after completion. Secondly, in the rate of grant, a preference is given to coal-burning ships. We have no desire to dictate to the shipowner the particular type of ship which he should order. He is the best judge of the type of ship which is most suitable for the employment he has in mind but the advantage of having at least a good proportion of our ships capable of using in time of war, a fuel which is produced in this country and for which no foreign exchange will have to be paid, is obvious. This preference, therefore, has been given and from a preliminary survey of the figures, it would appear that a substantial proportion of the ships which have been ordered will be either coal-burning or dual-purpose ships. Provision is also made for the annual grant to be withheld in a particularly prosperous year, and the same criterion as that to which I referred in connection with the tramp subsidy scheme is being taken for a year of exceptional prosperity. The first grant will be made on the completion of the vessel or as soon as practicable after 31st March next year, and the recipients of the grant will be subject to the same conditions with regard to co-operation and observance of National Maritime Board

agreements as those who receive the tramp shipping subsidy.
Now I will turn to the provisions of the Bill with regard to liner services. The position of the liner service has in the past two years been different from that of the tramp. Tramp shipping has been suffering from the general depression, in which more or less all have shared equally. The liner services, on the other hand, show great differences between one and the other. There have been many liner services in which the British companies have held their own, and have even been able to develop and extend. On the other hand, there have been services from which British companies have been driven or- services which British companies find it hard to maintain. The result is that in the case of the liner as opposed to the tramp, the difficulty is not so much general as particular. Some services arc not faced with foreign competition at all; some services are faced with unsubsidised foreign competition with which they are able normally to compete; but there are some services which have been faced in the past, and are being faced now, with foreign subsidised competition with which they cannot compete, with the result that sooner or later, unless something is done to assist them, they will be driven from that route.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the Clyde?

Mr. Stanley: Curiously enough, the thought had already occurred to me that that was a point which might be raised in the course of the Debate, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to adopt my own chronology. This is not a case for general assistance; it is a case for finding out the exact service which is affected and confining any assistance that is necessary to that service and that service only. My own belief is that in very many cases, where a liner service is threatened by subsidised foreign competition, the knowledge that it will be possible for the British company to get the same assistance from their Government will be enough to make reasonable agreements, which are now refused by the foreign competitors, easy to obtain; and if they cannot be obtained before the help is given, then, frankly, I believe that the only way in which it is possible to obtain reasonable agree-


ment is to let those who desire a rate war caused by their undercutting of freights have what they want and to stand behind our people in the same way as their Governments are standing behind them. I believe that in that case it will be possible to get reasonable agreements to cover many of these services.
The scheme of the Clause is to set up a Liner-services Defence Committee, consisting of three members, to be appointed by the Board of Trade. To them, the Board of Trade will refer any application by a British company in respect of help for a particular liner service, and it will be the duty of the committee to consider the applications and to report to the Board of Trade on the need for assistance in that particular case.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any particular line will be affected by this proposal?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member knows of many cases. He has referred to a document, which he knows extremely well, with regard to British shipping in the East, which sets out very clearly the need for some assistance of this kind. To qualify for assistance under this Clause, it will be necessary to show that, owing to competition from foreign shipping in receipt of official subsidies or assistance, the service is in danger of being curtailed or discontinued.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Does it follow from that there will be no financial aid at all in any case where there is not some form of definite subsidy from a foreign Government to a foreign line?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member looks at the definition of subsidy, he will see that it is in the widest possible form, and really that any form of help officially given by a Government or a local or public authority would bring it within the term, but I propose to deal later with the sort of case which cannot easily be brought within that extremely wide definition.

Mr. T. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman say clearly whether the subsidised competition to which he refers may be direct or indirect competition?

Mr. Stanley: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished, and then, when I am passing from the subject, if I have left anything out, draw my attention to it, it will be better.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend say—

Mr, Stanley: I really think I had better finish explaining this, and then, if I have done it imperfectly, perhaps that will be the time to ask questions,

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the onus of proof rests on the people who put in their claim as to-the subsidy, either direct or indirect, and also as to the quantity, because it will be extremely difficult for the proof to be forthcoming on the part of the owner?

Mr. Stanley: The Committee has got to-be convinced, from one source or another that there is a subsidy, but quite certainly the Government are not going to withhold from the Committee knowledge which they may have as to the assistance which a foreign Government may, either directly or indirectly, be giving to shipping. The assistance which may be given by the Board will be given in several forms, in the form of a grant, or a loan, or a guarantee, or it may be used specially for the building of new ships. The amount is limited to £10,000,000, with a time limit of two years as an experimental period.
Now, if I may pass to the question which the hon. Member opposite anticipated, and on which I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite would desire to hear something, and that is the case, to which a good deal of publicity has been given lately, of the Anchor and the Donaldson Atlantic Lines. It is, I think, a matter on which probably most hon. Members of the House have received some publicity, and it is one on which I have received deputations, and I have been interviewed actually by those concerned with the management of those lines. It is, as I think all who have gone into the case agree, a very difficult and a very important case. It is not only that these particular lines are lines with a long history behind them, giving employment to a large number of people, but they are also the only big passenger liner companies operating from a Scottish port,


and they play a very large part, not only in the economy of Scotland, but also in the national sentiment of Scotland as well. I quite realise that the disappearance of these lines would be viewed with grave alarm by Scottish opinion, and certainly it would be so viewed by the Government as well.
I have been asked whether the definition in the Bill is wide enough to enable these particular companies, under their particular circumstances, to make use of this Clause. It is not a question that I can answer, because it depends on the facts which they themselves will be able to adduce to this Committee in proof, but I would point out, in answer to the very proper question which the right hon. Gentleman himself asked, that the terms of the Clause are extremely wide. There is no limitation of the competition to direct competition; that is to say, there is no limitation to competition which lies between the same ports. It is not necessary to prove that there is a ship sailing from the same port, and going to the same port, in order to prove that this competition has occurred. It is clear that if we limited it to that extent, it might make nonsense of the Clause. What the Committee will have to ask itself is this: Can the line, whose competition is being complained of, in fact take passengers and cargo which otherwise would be available for the line which is complaining? That, hon. Members will realise, means taking into consideration things very much wider than the actual port of sailing or port of arrival. Are they in fact catering for the same potential passengers and the same potential cargo?

Mr. Gallacher: What is facing the Clyde —

Mr. Stanley: I know what the hon. Member is going to say, but if I deal with the matter as a whole, and answer questions afterwards, I think it will be the simplest way of doing it.

Mr. Gallacher: Not foreign subsidised competition, but subsidised home competition.

Mr. Stanley: That is exactly the point to which I want to come. I cannot say whether on the facts these two companies can bring their case within the terms of this Clause or not; that is to say, whether

they can show whether there is any basis of foreign subsidised competition at all, or whether they have to rest their case on competition with internal lines. It is quite clear that the sort of case with which we have to deal, and the sort of case with which this Clause is intended to deal, has as its essence an element of foreign subsidised competition. It is because of that that this method of assistance has been adopted. It is because of that that you can contemplate that the use of the provisions of this Clause may bring this excessive competition to an end, that agreements can be made, that the payment of the subsidy becomes unnecessary, that the rate war is ended, and that a reasonable arrangement is arrived at. The whole essence, therefore, of this Clause is that you have to deal with subsidised foreign competition. If you meet it with the same weapon as your competitors are armed with, you may hope that both the problems you are meeting and the provision with which you are meeting them may be temporary. That is something quite different from a problem which has no basis of foreign competition, where the circumstances, therefore, may well be, not temporary, to be met with a grant which will enable this reasonable arrangement to be made, but may be permanent, needing, therefore, some permanent solution if they are to be of any good.
Because we have limited the general provisions of this Bill to the type of case which is the general type and the case which I have explained, it does not mean that there may not be other cases which are just as important in which assistance of one kind or another may well be justified. But though they may be as important they will be different, and they will rest on entirely different grounds, and the remedy to be applied may be quite different. If in any particular case of that kind help is necessary then the House should have the opportunity of judging that case on its merits. It would be something which falls outside this general scope of subsidised foreign competition and if it is necessary for anything to be done to assist, the House should have the opportunity of investigating the case, of knowing what the reasons for wanting assistance are and judging whether the assistance to be given is right and will be effective. That is not to say that any such case should not


be referred to the Committee which we are setting up under this Clause. It may well be that the three men we choose would be the appropriate body whom I might ask to investigate any case. What it does mean is that if as the result of the recommendations they make there is to be financial assistance then, if such be the decision of the Government, in my view it should be the subject of special legislation and should not go through under a procedure in regard to which the House has been asked to consider one general type of case and will have had no opportunity of considering this other particular type of case.
I pass to the final proposal in the Bill, which is the formation of a Merchant Ship Reserve. That I need not discuss at any great length, because the principles of it have already been discussed upon a Supplementary Estimate, and since then the Board have had certain of the powers, at any rate, which this Clause will confer. It has had the power to purchase ships without, of course, the power of compulsory arbitration. I need say only this, that since the House discussed the Supplementary Estimate the Advisory Committee has been set up and a number of offers of ships have been submitted to it and examined by it. A large number of those offers have been rejected, either because of unsuitability or, most frequently, because of the small size of the ship. The type of ship we particularly need now is the medium-size cargo ship, whether tramp or liner, and in present circumstances we are not buying very small ships.

Sir Arthur Salter: I understand that this reserve is to be used not, of course, for peace-time needs but in war.

Mr. Stanley: Yes.

Sir A. Salter: In that case is the right hon. Gentleman retaining for himself a discretion to act in these circumstances? Supposing that in two or three years' time the Government anticipated a war in a few months and were anxious to rush in additional stores, before that war came. They would have at that time £2,000,000 worth of tonnage. Are the Government allowing themselves discretion to use that tonnage for that abnormal demand as a method of war preparation? Otherwise, we should have the very anomalous position of the Government urgently de-

siring tonnage but unable to get it except by withdrawing ships from services they ought to be engaged on, while at the same time holding these ships on the leash at a time when they could go out in safety and waiting until the moment arrived when they could only go out in imminent danger of destruction by submarines. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to leave it as a discretion and not an obligation to use the ships in that way?

Mr. Stanley: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point, and I see the possibility of such a situation arising. I am not leaving myself discretion for this reason, that to have this considerable reserve of tonnage overhanging the market at a time when already there tends to be an over-supply of ships and in circumstances where the Government might bring them out at any moment would, I think, have an extremely bad effect upon the general level of freights and upon the general prosperity of the industry. The situation which the hon. Member envisages would be a situation in which ipso facto there must be already great prosperity in the shipping industry, because otherwise there would be plenty of ships available apart from this reserve. If that situation arose, it would be perfectly easy then to obtain from the House a release from our obligation, and obtain it in circumstances which would not do any harm to the industry, because automatically, in the case suggested by the hon. Member, the industry would be enjoying a measure of prosperity, and there would be an actual shortage of ships. I believe it would be perfectly possible, if those conditions did arise, to deal with the situation in that way, and it would avoid the great danger of the effect upon the freight market of having this reserve of tonnage unless there is some bar upon its use in time of peace.

Sir Alan Anderson: I suppose we are entitled to lay up the ships in any port, and keep them in any port, and so they could be kept in a port convenient for their use?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, that is quite true, because we have power in this Bill to move them from port to port.

Sir A. Salter: Across the sea when they would be in danger.

Mr. Stanley: If I may say so, that is an extremely unfair observation. The situation would not necessarily blow up in an hour. This House can do things very quickly, and I have no doubt that if that situation did arise it would be perfectly possible to get release from this restriction. There is only one other point to which I need refer, and that is a proposal that a permanent committee composed of shipowners and shipbuilders should be set up. One of the things about these joint industries which strikes the outsider is the tremendous swing in the rate of shipbuilding orders. When times are bad and shipbuilding prices are low nobody orders ships. When times become better and shipbuilding prices rise everybody wants to order a ship. Anything which could be done to level out the shipbuilding orders and have them given on an ordered plan would be of the very greatest value.

Miss Wilkinson: There is no representation for the consumers.

Mr. Stanley: This is a joint plan to be worked out between the purchaser and the seller of a commodity for levelling out the period in which orders are given.

Miss Wilkinson: But with no user representation.

Mr. Stanley: Well, the shipowner is the user. I do not think I need add to the description of this Bill which I have given to the House. I believe it is essential in present circumstances that assistance of this kind should be at the disposal of the shipping industry of this country. I do not disguise from myself the fact that the only real remedy for the shipping situation in this country and the world over is a restoration to a normal level of seaborne trade, and certainly the Government have in the past few years made every effort to get an increase in that trade. But when we see the closed economies which are in operation in many parts of the world it is idle to think that there is any rapid way of achieving that very desirable result, and until it is achieved I am convinced that assistance of this kind is necessary to preserve a service which is invaluable to us in time of peace and vital to us in time of war.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

 this House realises the necessity for some assistance to enable British shipping to cope with modern conditions, but regrets that such assistance is not accompanied by a measure of public control, and is of opinion that more satisfactory and binding assurances with respect to the reorganisation of the industry and the all-round application of National Maritime Board Agreements with respect to crews and wages are required 
If any evidence should be required in support of the demand for a Ministry of Shipping it is to be found in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and in his frequent appearances at that Box. In the last few months the right hon. Gentleman has introduced legislation dealing with trade, the prevention of fraud, the textile industry, and a variety of other subjects, and it appears to me and my hon. Friends, and I believe it is a view supported by hon. Members in other quarters of the House, that the vast ramifications of the Mercantile Marine, the range of legislation affecting it, and the need for adequate supervision of all the complicated questions touching it justify the institution of a separate Department to be called the Ministry of Shipping. I understand that the Government have already prepared plans for the establishment of such a Ministry at the outbreak of war. If that be true, it appears to me that the circumstances which confront us at the present time, the circumstances, indeed, which have impelled the Government to introduce this Measure, justify the establishment of such a Ministry at once.
I think it can be argued that an industry of this kind, involving capital of between £150,000,000 and £200,00,000, an industry that is vital to our trade and economic interests, ought not to be the Cinderella of the Board of Trade. There is a separate Ministry for coal and a separate Ministry for transport, and although I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to a deputation from several trade unions on this very point, urged that there were too many Ministries already, I suggest to him that it is not a question of whether or not there are sufficient Ministries now but whether such a Ministry is required having regard to the existing circumstances.
I will pass at once to the position of the Mercantile Marine. I yield to none in the desire—and in this I am supported by my hon. Friends—to maintain, I shall not say the supremacy, but, the position of the British Mercantile Marine. That


is essential not only for the purposes of war but for the purposes of peace. It is essential in our own economic interests. At the same time, we must not make the mistake of taking measures which may have the effect of inflating the Mercantile Marine out of all proportion to our trade and economic interests. If that should occur—and it may very well do so unless there is adequate supervision and regulation and, above all, the requisite organisation—we may find that we have to use only a proportion of vessels in relation to our trade needs, and this may effect an extensive laying up of vessels, or, what is even worse, a serious decline in freight rates. Therefore the matter of assistance and organisation and the like, in relation to the Mercantile Marine, must be very carefully considered.
In the course of what I have to say I may indulge in what may be regarded in some quarters as captious criticism, but that is the last thing that I desire to do. I am bound to say, having regard to the fact that we are proposing to extend direct and indirect subsidies over a period of about five years, amounting to no less a sum than £25,250,000; moreover, in view of the fact that we are proposing to expend an additional £10,000,000 by way of loans and a further £2,000,000 for the purpose of building up a Merchant Navy Reserve, that we are entitled to ask many questions and to call—within the limits of debate—for a detailed investigation with regard to this large expenditure of public money. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the present position of the Mercantile Marine, some measure of assistance is essential. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the causes which have led to the decline of the Mercantile Marine, and I should like to add a few words to what he said.
The beginning of the decline of the British Mercantile Marine occurred during the last War. We were engaged in hostilities and, in consequence, Japan, who was not so extensively engaged as we were, and some of the Scandinavian countries, who were neutral, contrived to take advantage of the situation—quite properly in the circumstances—for the purpose of building a Mercantile Marine which, since that time, has developed until now it is in a condition of heavy competition with the British Mercantile Marine. Over and above that, shipowners are largely to

blame for the present situation. Ever since the War there has been very little co-ordination among ship-owning firms in this country. We have almost the same number of units in the shipping industry as we had prior to the last War.

Sir Charles Barrie: No.

Mr. Shinwell: I said "almost the same." I will deal with that point more exhaustively in the course of my speech. I think I am right in saying that there has been little attempt at effective coordination or amalgamation in the shipping industry since the conclusion of the last War. Instead of reinvesting some of their profits in the industry, shipowners have been too prone to take the cream out of the business and the British Mercantile Marine has suffered inconsequence. Be that as it may, we are-all agreed that some form of assistance is now required. We have to consider what is the most effective form of assistance. I should say at once that the party for whom I speak have definite-views about the granting of financial assistance. We do not regard subsidies as inherently unsound provided that proper conditions are laid down to safeguard the public interest. Perhaps I may now state what we regard as the requisite conditions for any subsidies granted by the State. The first condition is that subsidies should be intended to promote, the common good. That is an essential condition. Next there should be no-placing of a premium upon incompetence in any industry. Lastly—hon. Gentlemen opposite will not agree with me in this and certainly the right hon. Gentleman will not, because he emphasised that he was not taking the profit out of the industry—one of the conditions should be -that subsidies should never be granted if, in any way, direct or indirect, they are intended for private gain. It seems to me that those are the essential conditions prerequisite to the granting of any subsidy.
The shipowners cannot have it both, ways. Let us examine their position. They expect to preserve their independence. There is resentment at State intervention; no body of industrialists in this country is more individualistic than the shipowners. Now they come along and, while unwilling to relax their sovereignty, they ask the State for grants. In other words, they wish to be independent in respect of the conduct of their


industry because they resent any form of intervention or interference, but, at the same time, by virtue of the demands they make and by virtue of this Bill, they are dependent upon State grants for the maintenance of the industry. They cannot have it both ways.
There is a peculiar feature to which I would draw the attention of hon. Gentlemen. Some months ago the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the shipowners, having been asked to inquire into the matter themselves, had made several submissions to the right hon. Gentleman. I have the papers beside me but I shall not refer to them, except to say that the shipowners ask for financial assistance. They ask for £2,500,000 over a period of five years for the purpose of a tramp shipping subsidy. On the last two occasions, I think it was in 1936 and in 1937, the right hon. Gentleman said that the annual grant was £2,000,000. To the best of my recollection the whole amount was not expended, but that is another matter. Although the shipowners asked for only £2,500,000 annually for five years, the right hon. Gentleman has gone a bit further; he grants them £2,750,000 annually for five years.

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the papers he will see that they also asked for £500,000 for tramp shipping in the near Continental trades, making £3,000,000 a year for both the deep sea and the near Continental services.

Mr. Shinwell: That is an extraordinary explanation. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not expect to argue that because the Government resisted their demand it justifies the grant of an additional amount. But every man to his taste. If that argument suits the right hon. Gentleman he can have it. I repeat that, from the evidence of the White Paper, the Government are more generous than the shipowners ever expected them to be. When we come to the liner defence fund we find that although the shipowners asked for £5,000,000 the Government propose £10,000,000. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a similar explanation for that generosity.

Mr. Stanley: I have not the papers by me, but the shipowners asked for £5,000,000 a vear for five years. Is not

£10,000,000 for two years, at the same rate?

Mr. Shinwell: According to the papers I have—and I have all the documents of the shipowners themselves, which they were good enough to send to me some time ago—my recollection is that the ship owners asked for £5,000,000. It is true that they asked for an additional amount for the near Continental trades but, so far as I know, there was no demand for £5,000,000 annually for five years. That is new to me. The Government have been more generous

Colonel Ropner: The hon. Geatleman must read the papers from the shipowners again, because he is making a most frightful mess of the figures.

Mr. Shinwell: The only thing I have to say about the figures in the pipers is that all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to do is to quote them, and I may be corrected. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and the shipowners asked for £5,000,000 annually for five years, it seems to me-—while not accepting it for a moment—that the shipowners must regard the Government as a very soft thing from their point of view. I ask what ought to be done in relation to the granting of the subsidy. The first thing is that, accompanying any form of public assistance, there ought to be a large measure of public control. Where there is public expenditure there ought to be public control. There is none in this Measure. Nothing is contained in the White Paper, although, as I shall be able to show a little later in connection with tie liner defence scheme, there is very strong ground for some measure of public control having regard to the position of shipping on the Orient.
We are entitled to ask—the speech of the right hon. Gentleman bore out this contention—that the industry be conducted not in accordance with the special needs of the shipowners but in accordance with the national needs If that be a sound proposition, the very least the Government should have proposed was that on the committees which are to operate the subsidies—the tramp shipping administrative committee, operating the subsidy of £2,750,000 annually for five years, the liner defence committee and the committee to deal with the grants for building cargo vessels—there should at


least be some direct Government nominees who would concern themselves primarily with the interests of the State, irrespective of the special needs of the shipowners. That principle has been recognised by the Government and by past Governments; for example on the board of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, formerly the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, there are two Government nominees, who are there to protect the interests of the State. That is their purpose. The Government ought at least to have provided for the presence of Government nominees, not a very large measure of public control, but an instalment in that direction. I am not arguing now for the nationalisation of the shipping industry, though I think that sooner or later that demand will become more impressive and more emphatic. I think the Government will have to recognise the need for much closer co-ordination. For the moment I am arguing that as a prerequisite of the granting of financial assistance certain conditions should be laid down, among them being a large measure of public control.
Now as regards the application of the subsidies, what is the position? The tramp shipping subsidy is to be granted to shipping firms who come within the scope of this Measure, irrespective, first of all, of the financial position of those firms, and, secondly, of the running costs of the vessels concerned. That seems to me a quite improper practice. The right hon. Gentleman well knows, though he has spoken of the depressed condition of merchant shipping, that there are many tramp shipping companies, and companies with which we are now concerned, who are earning a high profit and paying a high dividend. I am not going to weary the House by giving figures, but I am certain that even shipowning firms represented on the other side of the House are well aware of the fact that even some of their firms have earned high profits in recent years. I know that some firms have been unable to earn high profits or to pay dividends, but if I cared to quote, I might surprise the House by the disclosure of information about the financial position of some shipping firms. Sometimes it has occurred to me that as the means test is a test applied by the Government to the poor, it might well be applied here.
Now I come to the question of the difference in running costs, and here I

want to refer to a matter which has engaged the attention of the shipping industry for some time in relation to the administration of the minimum freight scheme and the operation of the tramp shipping subsidy. I think it is true that the co-operation between British and foreign shipping which emerges from that scheme, while it has to some extent safeguarded the interests of British shipowners, has had the effect of conferring benefits on foreign shipowners, in spite of the fact that the running costs of foreign vessels are less than the running costs of British vessels. In particular, I direct attention to the fact that recently there has been a departure from an old practice in the employment of lascars on the North Atlantic trade, and I understand that German shipping lines are now employing lascars in that particular trade. It may well be that some of those German firms come ' within the scope of this Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee's operations and derive benefit from the minimum freights scheme. It seems quite improper that we should be providing subsidies and demanding cooperation among British shipowners— international co-operation, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of—when, in spite of lower running costs, foreign shipowners who gain from the scheme are able to engage in unfair competition with our own trade.
The right hon. Gentleman has designed a scheme in relation to the liner defence problem which is based, not on minimum freights, but on the merits of the case presented to the Committee about to be established by the right hon. Gentleman. In view of that proposal, instead of our providing subsidies for ship-owning firms, irrespective of running costs, irrespective of whether they employ lascar labour at low wages or British seamen at National Maritime Board wages, those firms ought to apply to a Committee set up by the Government, on which the Government have their own nominees safeguarding the public interest, and each case should be dealt with on its merits. I suggest that that is a much more effective and much fairer scheme than the one the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.
Now I come to the question of the liner defence fund itself. I agree at once that, having regard to the disclosures resulting from the investigations of the Imperial


Shipping Committee, relating to shipping in the Orient, there is a need for assistance to the liners operating in those seas, but let us be quite clear about the position. It is all wrong to suggest that British shipping in the Orient is suffering because of heavily subsidised Japanese competition. Indeed, that is not the contention of the Imperial Shipping Committee. I admit that Japan does subsidise liners on her various trade routes to some extent, but the Imperial Shipping Committee, who are very largely a body of shipowners, agreed among themselves that the main cause of the difficulty in the Orient, affecting British shipping in those seas, was not heavily subsidised Japanese competition, but another factor of greater importance, namely, that Japanese shipping was related to Japanese finance and commerce, that Japanese commerce, finance, and shipping were co-ordinated and, last but by no means least, that Japanese shipping was strictly regulated in its operations by the State itself. There is no such thing as an unfettered and individualistic Japanese shipping concern. On the contrary, no Japanese shipping firm can conduct any particular trade without regard to the needs of the State itself; and it is because Japanese shipping is so highly co-ordinated and organised and rationalised that it has been able to a very large extent to drive the British mercantile marine from Oriental seas.
That brings me to the question raised when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking as to the application of the liner defence fund. I know a good deal about the causes of the liner decline on the Clyde. I can remember many years ago when four liners left the Clyde every week with 2,000 passengers, each proceeding either to Montreal, St. Johns, New York or Boston. All that has gone. There is, of course, not the same emigration, and obviously in the case of these liners the amount of cargo cannot possibly compensate for the loss of passengers. There is another reason also. We have all become familiar with the drift of industry to the south, and the same thing has happened in relation to shipping. At one time a great many liners left the Clyde. Many of those liners, because of the operations of particular shipping firms, are now operating from Liverpool and Southamp-

ton; and, although I am the last person to try to deprive Liverpool and Southampton of the trade they have at the present moment, I am of opinion that those ports are highly congested, and that some of the trade might very well have been left in the hands of some of the other ports. I think that from the standpoint of our economic needs, and from the standpoint of passenger emigration, the Clyde is just as useful as the Mersey or the Port of Southampton.
Therefore, I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that his arrangements for the application of the liner defence fund are a little vague. There was- nothing very definite about them. Committees are to be established and. claims are to be presented, and the circumstances are to decide, but that is all very vague. In view of that, I think we ought to lay down that in the application of the liner defence fund we ought not to have regard only to cases where there is subsidised competition, but to all the circumstances and the needs of the mercantile marine as a whole, and in particular to the needs of the various ports in relation to trade and in relation to our maritime and civilian population. It seems to me that that would be a much better approach to a solution of the problem than merely to apply the principle of the subsidies for liners to a particular group and a particular trade.
That brings me to the question of reorganisation. Hon. Members who have read the White Paper will agree with me that the question of reorganisation, as treated in the White Paper, is left very vague. I would like to know what is meant by reorganisation as stated in the White Paper. May I direct attention to the statement made by the shipowners themselves? What it amounts to is that the British liner companies declare that their industry is in a highly organised condition, and in a querulous kind of way they complain of the intervention of the Government, but they did promise—no doubt as a condition for subsidy—that they would re-examine the position, and see whether it was possible to create a more efficient organisation of the industry. Of course that is most unsatisfactory.
The right hon. Gentleman has come to this House frequently and, in his usual able and lucid fashion, has piloted Bills through the House on coal, textile and


other subjects, all denoting the need for rationalisation. Take the case of coal. He piloted a very technical and complicated Bill through this House. What did it provide for? It provided for rationalisation, for amalgamation, for fewer units in the industry, for regulation of prices, for some kind of State direction of coal in the establishment of the Royalties Commission. The same, indeed, applies, not in the same degree but to some extent, to the Bill for the reorganisation of the textile industry. There is a reduction of spindles, there is rationalisation. The same applies also to steel and iron, because there we find an almost complete rationalisation. Hon. Members have frequently objected to this kind of rationalisation because they were afraid of prices rising unduly.
And yet, while the right hon. Gentleman has come to this House on behalf of the Government with rationalisation schemes denoting co-ordination and amalgamation of coal, textile, iron and steel, he leaves the question of reorganisation in the shipping industry, in spite of subsidies and financial assistance of various kinds, to the shipowners themselves. It seems to me that we have a right to demand, first of all, that reorganisation should precede the granting of subsidies, or, if the Government object to that, that reorganisation should accompany the granting of subsidies. That subsidies should be granted in the fashion the Government suggest, and that this reorganisation, so essential to the maintenance and the integrity of the mercantile marine, should be left to the shipowners does seem to me wrong.
May I direct attention to the fact that there are many subsidiary concerns in the shipping industry? There is no time to go into that, but I had 18 years' experience of this business on almost every dockside in this country, and I know how many subsidiary concerns, like dry dock concerns, shipchandlers and so on, operate as subsidiary companies, whose profits are not brought into the balance sheet when the accounts are made up. Moreover, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that some shipowning firms derive more profit from the sale of snips than they derive from the actual running of their ships. These facts have to be taken into account in considering the question of reorganisation.
I venture to say that some provision should be made, before the granting of a subsidy, for fewer units in the industry. For example, I think it is right to suggest that some of the main lines might be grouped. In the North Atlantic trade, why should not the whole of the lines in that trade be grouped? I admit that in the case of the Cunard White Star Line there are certain American connections, but these have been got over in the past and could be got over now. There is the Anchor Line, which is now in the hands of the Runciman family, and I could tell a story about that, but I will leave it for some other occasion. There is also, I think, an Aberdeen Line in the North Atlantic trade, and there are several others. Why should not the whole of the North Atlantic lines be grouped, reducing the number of vessels if necessary, cutting out a lot of the dead wood, and, in short, rationalising the North Atlantic lines? The same could be done in the River Plate trade and in the South African trade. That seems to me to be much more sensible than parcelling out these doles to the shipowners without demanding the conditions which are so essential for the rebuilding of the industry.
I come now to what I regard as one of the most essential points of all. The Government propose to expend this money, and I agree that there is a need for the expenditure in the present condition of the Mercantile Marine, but what is going to happen after the money has been spent? What is going to happen, after the expiry of the five years, in relation to tramp shipping? What is going to happen in 1945 in relation to the liner defence fund when the money has been expended? It seems to me that we are entitled to know. Are the shipowners to come again and say that they are still in a depressed condition, that they have been unable to bring about the reorganisation of which they spoke five years previously, and that they want more money? That simply is not good enough. Unless we are assured of effective reorganisation in the Mercantile Marine, it is a gross waste of public money to grant this subsidy.
I shall not say anything about the loans for shipbuilding, except that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about building ships and not scrapping. From what I know of the position, there are too many British


vessels which are obsolete and ought to be scrapped. Many of them were built during the War; they were called standard vessels. During the War I was asked by the Ministry of Shipping to inspect the crews' quarters in these vessels and to report on them, and I saw some of them being built. Many of them are obsolete and ought to be scrapped at once. It seems to me that, while it is an excellent proposal to provide loans for shipbuilding—after all, the money has to be repaid—we ought not at the same time to retain many of these old vessels, which are really unworthy of the British Mercantile Marine and its traditions. I hope, also, that the right hon. Gentleman is going to safeguard himself to some extent by regulating the prices of raw materials for shipbuilding purposes, and, particularly, that he is going to regulate steel costs.
I should like now to say a few words on the tonnage reserve and the use to which it is being put. I do not believe it is satisfactory that we should use this reserve tonnage merely for the purpose of training or for purposes of storage. It seems to me that, if the Government are to enter into the shipping business and buy up a number of ships to the value of £2,000,000 over a period of time, many of those ships ought to be put into commission. It may be that to put them all into commission at once might have an effect on the minimum freights scheme, and it would have to be properly regulated. There is one very extraordinary fact to which I want to direct the attention of the House, I took part in the discussion some weeks ago in the Supplementary Estimate, when the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to spend this £2,000,000 for the purpose of purchasing reserve tonnage. Some ships have already been purchased. I find from the "Shipping World" of last week that one vessel—which, incidentally, was in the Spanish trade quite recently —of about 9,000 tons deadweight, built in 1912 and therefore is 27 years old, has been bought. As recently as November last, this vessel was on offer at £17,500, but the Government, with their usual generosity, paid £20,000 for it. It is true that this 27-year old vessel is said to have a speed of 11 or 12 knots, and therefore would be a useful unit. There was another ship which fetched £21,500,

while its price at the year of last year was less than £20,000. It seems to me to be most improper, and a waste of public money, that we should be building up a merchant shipping reserve at the expense of the public in order to provide profits for some shipowners and ship-brokers, and I really think the right hon. Gentleman ought to look into that matter.
There are two further points in connection with the tonnage reserve. To what use are the vessels to be put, and how are they to be maintained? It seems to me that there ought to be proper maintenance crews in these vessels if they are to be held in reserve against an emergency. It is not sufficient, as a shipowner said in the House some time ago, when we were discussing: the Supplementary Estimate, that there should be merely a watchman on board with a can of oil. That is absurd. A maintenance party is needed in each vessel, so that it may be kept ready for emergency, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that that is done, because, once these ships begin to deteriorate—they have deteriorated enough already because of their age—the deterioration will go on to such an extent that they will be of no use to the Government at all.
I beg the indulgence of' the House to allow me to deal with one mere point which is of supreme importance, namely, the conditions of the officers and men. Frequently, when questions affecting the officers and men are brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, he propounds the query: Why cannot they apply to the National Maritime Board? I agree that the National Maritime Board has negotiated difficulties very successfully in recent years, but there is one difficulty. There is no appeal from the National Maritime Board, and, if there is no agreement between the two sides, a deadlock ensues, and the only alternative is for the men either to go on strike or to acquiesce in the owners' proposals. I believe that to be wrong'. It seems to me that, when any difficulty arises on the National Maritime Board on a question affecting industrial conditions, there ought to be provision for enabling either side, either the employes or the employers, to appeal to the Industrial Court or to industrial arbitration.
I want to direct special attention to the position of the masters. I recognise that


in recent years there has been a definite improvement in the conditions both of the officers and of the men in the British Mercantile Marine, and I believe that to some extent that has been due to the Debates we had on the last Tramp Shipping Subsidy, since much of the improvement dates from 1936. It is still, however, the fact, though I agree it is not general, that many masters—I am not speaking of the officers generally—are unable to obtain leave from their duties for a short holiday. They are held down to their ships year in and year out, with no opportunity of escaping from the ship at all. Some shipowners will not give their masters leave. One of the difficulties about ships' masters is that there is no masters' panel on the National Maritime Board. There is an officers' panel and a men's panel, but not a masters' panel. It seems to me that something ought to be done in that regard, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the board or, if he cares to do so, with the shipowners, in order to provide for the institution at once of a masters' panel, composed very largely of representatives of the masters, so that these difficulties may be dealt with.
Lastly, I come to the question of training. I believe that, in spite of the high prestige of the complements of our merchant vessels, and of their high qualifications in general, many officers are ill-equipped for the tasks they have to undertake. That is due to the inadequacy of our training methods. Some time ago there was established a Merchant Navy Officers' Training Board with the support of the Board of Trade, but, in spite of that, the methods employed for the training of young men for the position of officers are most inadequate and unsatisfactory. What is required is something in the nature of a maritime university. After all, this is one of the most highly skilled professions, and, if some of our young men are ill-equipped because all they have been able to do has been to undergo correspondence courses, instead of being given the opportunity of attaining the highest skill, it is a mistake.
I hope the House will forgive me for having taken up so much time. I want to say, before I sit down, that we admit the need for the assistance which the Government propose, though we believe

that the owners are very largly to blame for the present situation. We do not, however, propose to indulge in severe recriminations about that. We believe that, if subsidies are to be granted, they ought to be accompanied by public control; we believe that reorganisation ought to be effective; and we believe that the conditions of the personnel of the Mercantile Marine ought to be brought up to the highest possible standards. These men in the Mercantile Marine, while some of them may be rough, untutored, and perhaps a little uncouth, are the most generous of men. I have known intimately two classes of men, miners and seamen, and, as one of one of my hon. Friends says, they are both the salt of the earth. They deserve well of the country; and, when we are considering the provision of public assistance for the shipowners to rehabilitate the Mercantile Marine, one of the essential conditions is to see that the men employed—14,000 of them lost their lives in the last war—get a fair and square deal.

7.30 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: There was so much in the speech of the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) with which I agree that I would much sooner not quarrel with him over the figures that he quoted. I hope he will accept my assurance that I have referred to the documents which he quoted and have found that, neither in the case of the liners nor of the tramps, have the Government actually provided the full amount for which either section asked.
I know that the Prime Minister will agree with me that the shock tactics of power politics pursued by aggressor States in international affairs form the most pressing menace to other nations. But I have often thought that if, as I hope, we escape the calamity of a war, it may be found that there is another danger, less violent in character but perhaps more certain, which threatens the well-being of the great democracies. There is not a totalitarian State which is not pursuing a policy of economic nationalism, entailing, so far as is possible, an economy of self-sufficiency, and while military operations on a national scale may be the greatest danger, economic war started years ago and has been pursued in a ruthless fashion on the industrial front ever since.


The success achieved by nationalised industry—I hope the hon. Member for Seaham will take note of these remarks—comes not from its greater efficiency, but from the fact that behind nationalised industries are ranged the full resources of their national exchequers. The success of State-aided industries should not be used as an argument for nationalisation; but, on the contrary, it should often be a warning against nationalisation. One so often sees in connection with nationalised industries disciplined taxpayers being compelled to pay heavily for bureaucratic management, or mismanagement, and for uneconomic trading. Nevertheless, if the taxpayers of some nations are sufficiently docile, and if criticism is stifled, the fact remains that in the markets of the world private trading often becomes difficult, and occasionally impossible, unless the Government are prepared to counterbalance the subsidies and other forms of assistance given to foreign competitors without thought of economic factors. It is the fact of State aid to industry by foreign governments, and not the fact that many industries are nationalised or controlled, that disrupts, disorganises, and dislocates normal trade. I admit, in fairness, that, conversely, it is immaterial to my argument whether to meet that unfair competition our industries are nationalised or not.
In some form or other, aid must be given to those industries, of which shipping is one, that have to meet unfair foreign competition. Although hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may not agree with me, I have no hesitation in expressing the belief that the best value for the money will be obtained, in the vast majority of industries, if State aid is given to industry run by private enterprise and initiative. Shipping is peculiarly susceptible to attack. Shipping trades in a market which is world-wide, and in that market the ships of all nations are, within certain limits, free to compete. It is from this market that British shipping is being driven. For 20 years, as the hon. Member for Seaham has reminded us, the British Mercantile Marine has been losing ground. The British Merchant Navy is being swept from the sea, not by fair economic competition, but as a result of the fulfilment of national policy followed by other nations. I hope that I have at least established this point, that if any

industry—and again I must remind the House that shipping is one industry the survival of which is threatened—is to live under modern conditions it must be State-aided, whether it is nationalised or not. That is admitted in the first part of the Amendment.
The next question which all threatened industries have to face is that of how State aid can best be given so as to be, in the first place, most effective, and in the second place be least burdensome on the rest of the community. Generally speaking, the answer is a protective duty; but, unhappily for shipping and for some other industries, it is not possible to apply the machinery of a protective duty. Various suggestions—and I think mostly good ones—have been made in this Debate as to what should be done as a long-term policy. It is true that that which might bring most benefit to every branch of the shipping industry is the restoration of world trade and a greater flow of goods between the nations of the world. I hope that when the world returns to sanity the Government will continue their valiant efforts to increase the flow of goods throughout the world, particularly among the members of the British Empire. As a medium-term policy there occurs to my mind the question of trade agreements. This country provides a large and important market for many nations, and I suggest that the power which that gives to the Government in trade negotiations might be used, where they consider it advisable, to ensure that imports and exports from the country with which an agreement is being negotiated should be carried, ass least to a certain minimum extent, in British vessels.
But as an immediate shield against attack the only effective help which the Government can give to shipping is a subsidy. A subsidy has many very obvious objections. I am certain that no Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to give a subsidy. I am certain tint the; proposal is disliked by the President of the Board of Trade, and I can assure hon. Members that a subsidy is whole-heartedly disliked by the shipping industry. [Laughter.]I expected hon. Members opposite to be amused by that, and, having noted the presence o) the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) I expected her to be the most amused.
If she has any suggestion as to how the industry can be helped at present without a subsidy I can assure her that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, and the shipping industry will be glad to hear of it. The problem has defeated the combined efforts of those three parties up to now. I repeat that the subsidy is much disliked by shipowners, but it is the only method by which immediate help can be provided. I hope that I have established, as a second point, that if, as is admitted in the Amendment, some assistance is needed by the British shipping industry, the only immediate assistance that can be provided is in the form of a subsidy, however much that may be disliked.
I will turn for a moment to an examination of the provisions of the Bill. There are five proposals; first, the tramp shipping subsidy; secondly, loans to assist the building of ships; thirdly, grants to assist the building of ships; fourthly, the defence fund, to be employed in defending liners against subsidised competition; and fifthly, the formation of a Merchant Ship Reserve. As the hon. Member opposite reminded us, the grand total of these proposals, at a maximum, is £28,250,000, spread over five years, with a further £10,000,000 in the way of loan, which would be recoverable. Before making a more detailed examination of those proposals, I would point out that the Bill itself is largely permissive, and, although the White Paper explains the intentions of the Government, it is possible, within the terms of the Bill, for the President of the Board of Trade or his Department to administer the law in such a way as to make the Bill entirely ineffective. I am sorry that it has not been possible to put more into the Bill and less into the White Paper. Needless to say, I have no reason to suppose that the President of the Board of Trade intends to use his powers in such a way, but I thought I should draw attention to the fact, because we cannot be certain that the present President of the Board of Trade will retain his office for ever. Of the five separate and distinct proposals, there is only one, the tramp subsidy, to which I desire to devote much time. But I want to occupy the time of the House for a short while in remarking briefly on the other four proposals.
Although the Bill is called the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, there is one

proposal which has not only not been suggested by the shipping industry, but which is positively disliked by the industry. There are two other proposals in the Bill, the inclusion of which, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, is on account of the desire of the Board of Trade itself, and I think he might have added, was certainly not suggested by shipowners. As I said in a previous Debate, the formation of a tonnage reserve, which is to absorb something over £2,000,000, was opposed by the shipping industry, but the President of the Board of Trade informed the industry that in his view it was in the national interest for the purpose of defence to form a shipping reserve, and, needless to say, any opposition which the industry felt to the proposal was immediately put aside. The President of the Board of Trade has the assurance of the industry that, in view of his statement that it is necessary for the safety of the country to have this tonnage reserve, the industry will do its best to co-operate and make the scheme a success. But I consider this to be something rather in the nature of panic legislation, necessitated by the startling decline in the numbers of the British Mercantile Marine, and had successive Governments heeded the warnings which they constantly received, and had they taken proper action at the proper time, there would never have been any necessity for this Government to buy old ships and form a reserve, for the British Mercantile Marine would not have declined as it has declined during the last few years.
I am fairly sure that the loans for building new ships were not suggested by the shipping industry, and they may or may not be welcomed. I understand that the money is to be lent at about 3¾ per cent., and therefore I cannot see that it can be of very much help in the provision of new ships. In any case, £10,000,000 is available, and it remains to be seen whether there are a large number 0f applications for loans or not.
With regard to building grants, I was very pleased to hear from the President of the Board of Trade that as a result of his announcement, orders had been placed for about 150 ships. It is a great thing for this country and for the British Mercantile Marine that such a large amount of tonnage should be added to that sailing


under the Red Ensign. But surely it is unreasonable that these building grants should be dependent upon rates of freight. A ship that is built in this country is more expensive than a similar ship built in many other countries, and that is a permanent handicap throughout the life of the ship, and I really do not see the connection between this and the high or low rates of freight which such a ship may enjoy with the rest of the shipping of the world. The grant is presumably given to lessen to some extent the difference in cost between a British and a foreign ship. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary will say more on that subject to-night.
It is altogether wrong that an increased grant should be given to ships built to burn coal only. As the President of the Board of Trade has said, shipowners should be the best judges of what is the most suitable ship for the trades in which they are engaged. It is not very long ago that shipowners were accused of being out of date because they had not gone in more extensively for Diesel ships. Now an inducement is being offered to build ships, which, if the inducement is effective, will persuade others, in some cases at least, to build ships which will prove uneconomic, and that is a mistake. Building loans and even grants, except for the express purpose of levelling costs as between this and other countries, should be unnecessary. As I think the hon. Gentleman opposite said—if it was not the hon. Gentleman it was the President of the Board of Trade—if British shipping is given a fair crack of the whip, then ships will be built by the industry as they are wanted.

Mr. Shinwell: That does not sound like me.

Colonel Ropner: If it does not sound like the hon. Member, it must have been the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. and gallant Friend is now lashing me with scorpions.

Colonel Ropner: I should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade upon having got rid of the defeatist policy of scrap and build. Defeatism was the atmosphere which appeared to permeate the Board of Trade a few years ago, and I am glad that it

has been discarded, and that it is not necessary to scrap a ship before a new one can be built.

Mr. E. J. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a statement that coal-burning ships would probably be uneconomic. Can he give us some evidence of that?

Colonel Ropner: I could give a lot of evidence that a coal-burning ship would be uneconomic in certain trades. There are, however, many trades in which the coal-burning ship is still the most economic, but it is a pity to induce owners to build coal-burning ships to be used in a trade where oil-burning would be more economic. Unless that is the reason for the increase of the grant for coal-burning ships, I see no reason why it should be included in the Government's proposals.
There are other hon. Members in this House who can give a more well-informed and detailed opinion of the proposals with regard to liners. All I war t to say is that I hope that the discretion which the Defence Committee will be free to use will be as broad as possible. I see no reason why you should, on the one hand, help a British line competing against a subsidised foreign line, and, on the other hand, refuse assistance to a British line which is competing with a foreign line whose costs are very much lower by reason of lower wages. A large number of deserving cases might be excluded if the Committee is tied too rigidly to insisting upon direct subsidised competition as a qualification for assistance. I was not very struck by the argument of the President of the Board of that it was not his function this afternoon to define a Clause in the Bill which we are considering or to say what would be the view of the Committee when it considered a special case.

Mr. Stanley: I never said that. Although I gave what I considered to be the interpretation of this particular Clause, I could not say to what conclusion the Committee would come on the facts of a particular case that might be put to it.

Colonel Ropner: I do not think that we differ very much. I am not trying to misrepresent my right hon. Friend. We are engaged in making the aw and not in interpreting it, and if there: is any doubt whether the Committee will have this or


that power, and, if this House thinks it advisable, it is the easiest thing in the world, by making an Amendment in the Bill, to give the Committee all the power we wish it to have. That would be a very much easier procedure than the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade that every liner company which thinks it has a special case should ask for special legislation in this House. I really cannot believe that time would very often be found in order to give special consideration of that sort to the hardships of individual companies.
I want finally to deal with the tramp shipping subsidy. The sum of £2,750,000 a year for this purpose is a very considerable sum. But such are the terms and conditions of payment that the subsidy or full subsidy will not be paid when, on every ground, help should be given. I am sorry to say that every tramp shipping concern will be bitterly disappointed by the terms of the White Paper. If the President of the Board of Trade is constrained to think that that sounds ungracious and ungrateful as coming from a tramp shipowner, my reply must be that, if there is one-tenth of one per cent, of charity or anything more than justice in the Bill I will put my name below his to an Amendment to postpone the Second Reading not to this day six months, but to this day six years. Either the industry is or is not entitled to the assistance which the Government proposes. What is even more serious in the view of tramp shipowners is that the subsidy, administered as it is supposed that it will be, will not achieve the objects which, both the industry and the Government have in view, and the Board of Trade has already been informed of that fact by those who, during the whole of the most protracted and difficult negotiations, have so ably represented the tramp section of the shipping industry.
Those who are not engaged in the industry must, unless they have devoted a very considerable amount of time to pages 10, 11 and12 of the White Paper, be still considerably hazy as to the exact method of calculating and of paying the subsidy. It is with considerable hesitation, therefore, that I venture to make a few observations on this matter. When an efficient industry is in distress because of unfair competition, the problem may be regarded from one of two entirely

different angles. On the one hand, in the case of shipping, the Government might say, "This industry must be kept financially solvent. When the competition of subsidised and low-cost foreign vessels depresses the freight market to a ruinous level, the British Mercantile Marine must receive a subsidy of sufficient magnitude to allow it to find employment for its ships at a rate sufficiently profitable to allow for depreciation, and for the payment of fair wages and salaries, and to give a fair interest on the capital employed. If that were the view held by the Government, in times of low freights a high subsidy would be paid and in times of high freights a low subsidy or no subsidy, but the gross revenue would be maintained by the combined pool of trading profits and subsidies.
On the other hand, the Government might have taken an entirely different view. They might have said," We are not concerned with the profits of shipping companies. Shipowners and all engaged in snipping are in a speculative industry. They must expect periods of bad trade alternating with periods of good trade, and on past experience the bad trade years will be of more frequent occurrence than the good, but that is something with which we as a Government are not concerned. But, "they might add," this unfair competition by State-aided foreign ships is a different matter altogether. To meet that position we will calculate a subsidy of a specific amount which we believe to be necessary to off-set the advantage of the subsidies received by the foreigner. When that amount has been determined, the shipping industry will get no more in bad times and no less in good." Whichever approach the Government had followed to the problem with which they were presented, there would be many who would say that either was a reasonable course to have taken.

Mr. Bracken: Does my hon. and gallant Friend maintain that any British Government would be justified in handing out large subsidies to shipping companies while they are making large profits?

Colonel Ropner: I have not advocated that view. I have merely said that there are two different approaches to the problem, both of which might be said to be reasonable. Unfortunately the Government have lacked the courage and fore-


sight to hold to either view. Over a certain narrow range in the level of freights they appear to have taken the view that it is the financial stability of the industry, in which they are interested and the subsidy is paid according to a scale, which varies the amount when freights rise or fall. As freights rise, the subsidy is reduced, and finally abolished. But, if the subsidy disappears altogether when there are high freights, surely, to be consistent and to be fair and to achieve the object of the Bill, should the level of freights continue to fall below 95 per cent, of 1929 the subsidy should continue to increase. When freights are abnormally low the subsidy should be greatest, but it is at this point that the Government have abandoned its plan of guaranteeing financial stability, and the subsidy stands at a fixed amount however low the index level of freights may be, just as if the view taken by the President of the Board of Trade was that his chief concern, after all, was not the financial stability of the industry but rather a desire to off-set the extent of the advantage given by other nations to their mercantile marines through the medium of subsidies. It is in that way that the industry gets the worst of both alternative plans and the best of neither.
Now I am going to answer my hon. Friend's question. My own view is that the Government should endeavour to assess the average advantage held by foreign competitors and, having arrived at a figure, should give that amount to the industry; not more in bad times and not less in good, for in existing circumstances, in good times and in bad, and not less in good times than in bad, foreign merchant fleets gain ground and the British Mercantile Marine loses ground.

Mr. Bracken: Does my hon. and gallant Friend really mean that he wishes to turn the House into a universal soup kitchen for the benefit of the shipping industry?

Colonel Ropner: I should not like it to be turned into a soup kitchen for the benefit of anything, but I have not noticed that the hon. Member has suggested that protective tariffs should be abolished when times are good. If he had been present at the beginning of my speech, as I do not think he was, he would know that I was forced to admit that it is not

possible to help the shipping industry by a protective duty, which in fact affords a measure of protection in good times and in bad. There are other disappointing features of a comparatively minor nature, but nevertheless of some importance, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions. First of all, why should the industry have to wait until July, 1940, before receiving any subsidy under the Bill?

Mr. Stanley: The subsidy dates from 1st January.

Colonel Ropner: It does not start until you get it, and the fact remains that the first payment received under the Bill will be in July, 1940. If there is a lag in the payment after the inauguration of the plan, I see no reason why that lag should not be taken up now and the first payment made in January, 1940. In the second place, why has the President fixed 95 per cent, of the 1929 level as the point at which the subsidy diminishes? There can be no real confidence in the industry if that figure is maintained, and it certainly will not allow the industry to achieve the objects for which the subsidy is being given. In the third place, what do the Government mean, and for that matter what do hon. Members opposite mean, by reorganisation and co-operation? The industry is doing what it can, but I must frankly confess that it cannot do very much. Co-operation with the hangman can go too far, and there are a large number of hangmen abort. One of them is called Russia. The name of another is Germany. Three more are called, Japan, Greece and Italy. It is really very little good asking shipowners to co-operate with other nations whose object appears to be to eliminate entirely the British Mercantile Marine. It we are to be on level terms with the foreigner or, better still, if we can force the foreigner to stop subsidising his ships, if we can revert to fair trade, I think I can, on behalf of the whole industry assure my right hon. Friend, and anyone else who is interested in the matter, that the industry will co-operate in every possible way so as to render assistance of this sort unnecessary.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I cannot claim to have any special interest or special knowledge of the shipping industry. The right hon. Gentleman apologised for


having had to speak at great length on two occasions this week, and said that his mental distress was greater than that of the rest of the House. I have no means of knowing what degree of mental distress he has suffered, but I and my friends suffered no distress from his elucidation of a Bill which is recognised as being a complicated and a somewhat difficult Measure. He said straight away that it was necessary as an emergency Measure. Something had to be done for British shipping, both tramp and liner, and I do not know that anyone has differed from him in that opinion, nor do I. It is, however, admittedly a palliative. We cannot contemplate a position of this kind going on indefinitely. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) asked us to consider what will be the conditions at the end of five years, and went on to mention various conditions which he thought would be inevitable if the Bill was to deal with lasting conditions, and he said there would have to be a greater measure of public control. I am not sure that he did not underestimate the amount of public control that there is already in the Bill. It seems to me that, when all consideration has been given by the different committees, there is always the President of the Board of Trade, with very considerable power, and I have sufficient confidence in the Board of Trade to believe that they are not going to shovel out public money to inefficient people for the sole purpose of enabling them to pay dividends.
The hon. Member for Seaham touched upon the conditions of those employed in working ships. I am glad to think that there has been a noticeable improvement in this respect. I took advantage recently of an opportunity that offered to inspect the conditions of all classes of employes on board the "Mauretania." It is an exceptional case, but in conversation with those who were going to sea in her everyone informed me that the accommodation was better than anything they had ever seen before. [An Hon. Member: "A show ship."] I hope it is an example which is going to be followed. There have been great advances in passenger accommodation. I remember my grandfather, John Graham, who sailed out of Grangemouth as cabin boy on a collier and ended up as commodore of the Allen Line, at the time of the changeover from sail to steam, saying, when he came

ashore from one of his voyages: "Some of the passengers on this voyage have been asking for baths on board ship. I wonder what they will ask for next."

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The crews have been asking for them ever since.

Mr. White: Let the crews go on asking until they get them. This Bill is only a palliative, and can be nothing more than a palliative. I regard it more in sorrow than in anger, sorrow that the British shipping industry which, as was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) does not want doles but would prefer to be making profits and sailing on its own bottoms, should be subjected to the present conditions. We hope that the day will come when better conditions will be possible. Meanwhile, we must all of us feel resentful against the general conditions in the world which compel us to consider, and even to welcome, uneconomic and unnatural proposals of this kind.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash referred to economic nationalism. Subsidies, uneconomic and unnatural arrangements are the direct product of the international nationalism that is raging in the world. They are the direct product, the inevitable result, of the nationalism which is governing Europe to-day; a spirit of nationalism which is a narrow, selfish cult, which must inevitably land the country that is engulfed in it in moral and intellectual blindness. It is the result of that spirit that we are trying to cope with to-day.
In general, I should like to say that I think the Bill, as far as I am able to judge it, is well devised to meet the purpose for which it is brought forward. I certainly welcome the continuance of the scheme of loans for the purposes of shipbuilding, and I am glad that the former policy of build and scrap has been abandoned. I welcome the proposals for the continuation of grants which will enable shipbuilding to be encouraged and continued. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the response up to the present time to the shipbuilding scheme has been highly satisfactory, but he could not tell us what the net result will be, because the project is under examination, and may be under examination for some time to come. I was sorry to hear him limit the benefits


which might, perhaps, flow from this proposal. I should have thought that if upon examination it was found that there were ships which fell within categories which are considered desirable for the nation's service, that there would have been a balance of advantage, taking into account the employment which would be created, in allowing for a considerable expansion in the amount available for grant under that section of the Bill.
In regard to the Clause dealing with foreign competition on the liner service, I should like to refer to an observation which fell from the hon. Member for Sea-ham with regard to the need for the control of steel prices. There is a competition to shipbuilding in this country which is not founded upon Government assistance. There is a competition in shipbuilding which is not based upon subsidy. In Scandinavia and Denmark, for instance, there is a degree of efficiency in shipbuilding which is not related to Government subsidy, and I would invite the President of the Board of Trade to turn the searchlight once again upon the question of steel prices. The steel industry in this country now is a practical monopoly. We know that its profits increased enormously last year, although at the present time they may not be so great. In making that statement I do not wish to suggest that the monopoly position is being abused, but there is a monopoly position. In Belgium and some other countries the price of steel has not advanced to the same extent as in this country. Therefore, shipbuilders and shipowners are entitled to ask the steel industry in this country, or failing them somebody else, to see that they are not at a disadvantage in regard to the raw materials of their industry. That is a matter which should be kept under constant and careful scrutiny.
There is one further matter with which I should like to deal, and that is the proposal in Clause 6 in regard to reserve tonnage. I do not think anyone will quarrel with the object of that Clause in having a reserve of tonnage for use in an emergency. No one would wish to criticise the proposal to use that tonnage for training purposes, but where I differ from the right hon. Gentleman and the Government is in their policy in this matter. I remember that when the

Essential Commodities Bill was going through the House, the right hon. Gentleman was urged to take further powers to enable him to import supplies in excess of the powers he was seeking, but he resisted the suggestion. Nine months later the Government took those powers in setting up the Ministry of Supply.
To-night, in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the junior burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), the right hon. Gentleman again declined to take powers to utilise the reserves, if it should be thought fit, in advance of the emergency arising. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have less confidence in himself than the House and the country have in him. Nobody would imagine the right hon. Gentleman if he had those powers using them except in a proper way. In rejecting the suggestion, he based his argument on the ground that if there were a reserve of tonnage it would depress the market. No one could possibly imagine that he would use his powers in such a way as that. What we have to remember is that if we have the reserves of ships the most effective way to use that reserve is to use it now in bringing in the requisite commodities. The whole policy of food supplies in time of war could be modified and simplified, and the necessity for reserves might possibly be done away with by the use of tonnage at the present time.
We ought to utilise some of the shipping which is idle and bring into the country raw materials and foods. If we did that it would make the duties of the Fleet much easier, and lighten the work of the Mercantile Marine. It is highly desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should have powers which he can exercise over-night without having to come to Parliament. We know that the policy of the Government is to have in reserve supplies of food equivalent to about a fortnight's supply. A statement made earlier in the week in another place was that the total supplies of raw materials in the hands of the Government, plus private hands, is equivalent to about three months' supply of food in time of war. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is a situation which is causing a great deal of anxiety. We feel that the shipping of this country should be utilised now, and that it would render other possible operations easier in time of war. There are certain conditions


attaching to the grant. These require the industry:
to do its utmost to promote international measures tending to adjust the supply of tramp tonnage to demand so as to safeguard the level of freight rates;
to organise itself so as to satisfy the Government that at the end of the subsidy period it would be in a better position than it now is to maintain itself without Government assistance.
I think that shipowners might be justified in asking the Government to promote such conditions in our commercial transactions and international relations which would allow shipowners and those who go down to the sea in ships to transact their business on a more rational basis.

8.28 p.m.

Commander Marsden: I desire to draw the attention of the House to one aspect of shipping, and that is the coastal trade. It seems to have been forgotten entirely. The Bill is called a British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, but I find very little assistance for the coastal trade in it. It is true that they may be able to borrow money on loan, but the next method open to them is through a grant. The first point I want to make is this. In the "Scrap and build" policy the general formula was that ships could benefit which were 50 per cent, overseas trade and 50 per cent, home trade. We rather thought that the same test would be applied in the present case, but it is not so. The wording has been altered, and now any ship which has any considerable interest in the home trade cannot benefit by a grant at all. Without prolonging my argument, because I feel that the right hon. Gentleman knows all about it already, I hope that at a later stage he will agree to something more than just "considerable." There is bound to be some argument as to what is meant by "considerable." If we are talking about £1,000,000 I should say that £100,000 is a considerable sum. Whether these ships do a considerable amount of trade in home waters is bound to be a matter of great argument, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see before the Bill becomes law the advisability of putting in something more like the old definition and accept some such term as "mainly," which would be 50 per cent, or more.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) said rather emphatically that the only possible

assistance shipping could have was some form of monetary assistance. I cannot agree with that at all. It is the only assistance which is being offered to them, but there are other ways of giving assistance. There is a reservation of the trade. It is rather curious that the coastal traffic is always put in such a funny position. If it is a question of reservation the Board of Trade say that they cannot have reservation because they are one of the great waterways of industry, and that if there is a reservation of the home trade at once the repercussions will be felt in China, India and the Dutch East Indies. When the Coastal Trade ask for assistance in a different form, then they are included together with railways and roads in the home traffic around these coasts. Therefore, I say that the coastal trade invariably seems to be overlooked. When they ask for any financial help the argument is that we cannot subsidise one form of traffic against another; that is to say, that you cannot financially help the coastal shipping trade because their competitors, the roads and the railways, will want the same sort of assistance. Already there is a discrimination against shipping through the National Defence Contribution. I am sure that hon. Members are fully aware of that, but the tax does not apply to such companies as water, electricity, the maintenance of our canals and inland waterways, the conservancies of rivers, or the carriage of goods or passengers by railways.
That is my point. There is nothing about excluding shipping from the tax, if they come up to the standard of profits they will be called upon to pay, while their competitors, the roads and the railways, will not be called upon to pay. In fact, the railway situation in this particular industry strikes me as being quite unique. The railways are being pressed by the roads on the one hand, and keep calling out for a square deal. They, on their part, are pressing against the shipping industry, but we do not hear so much about a square deal in that respect. I have various bills of costing of through traffic of heavy goods, which must almost invariably include the railway in some form or another, usually the railway at the port and fixed charges for discharging and stowing cargo. In one of these bills there is a charge of 12s. 9d. altogether, of which the railways got 9s. 9d. and the


sea freight, which was about 250 miles out of a total of 300, only got 3s., and in that 3s. we have to remember that there are a number of fixed charges which the shipowner has to bear. The total amount of the profit accruing to him is very small indeed.
I should like to draw attention for a moment to another form of competition, and that in the competition of foreign ships in our waters. According to the figures that were given in the House last year, in 1911 there were 3,400 ships round our coast, employing 24,000 men. In 1937, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 904 ships, employing only 10,000 men. Admittedly the ships are rather larger now, but I do not see that there is much benefit in that; I would sooner see our eggs in a greater number of baskets. But do not let hon. Members think that because of that fall in the number of British ships and the total tonnage, there is any lesser demand for coastal shipping. The demand is being met by the Dutch. In 1930, the Dutch had 232 ships engaged in this trade, and in 1936 they had 1,673. They are round our coasts carrying goods which we should like our ships to be carrying.
What is the answer to this? Here I agree with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell)—and this is about the only thing on which I do agree with him—that the answer might be to have one Minister responsible for all forms of shipping. With regard to the coastal trade, in questions and answers in the House, various points have been dealt with by the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman sent a circular to public authorities asking them to insert in their contracts a provision for the use of British ships, and the response to that has been pretty good. The Minister of Agriculture deals with some parts of the fishing industry. The Minister of Transport arranges for transport in certain directions. Other Departments also are concerned with the coastal trade. For instance, there is the Admiralty, which the other day used a Dutch ship to take round potatoes for the Fleet; and the Ministers concerned were very shocked when they heard about that. There is also the Board of Trade. All these Ministers and Departments have something to do with the coastal trade, and yet not one of them is really able to

look after the trade properly and see that our ships are used, I do not say to the detriment of—for we do not wish them any harm—but in preference to Dutch ships.
There is only one way in which coastal shipping may get some assistance as a result of the Bill, and that is through the loans for shipbuilding. But is that really going to be of much assistance? If a man is going to build a small ship for the coastal trade, he can get it built in Holland at considerably less cost than here. As a matter of fact, that great organisation, the co-operative movement, which in my more unsophisticated days I thought was pre-eminently an association that wished to employ British labour at the highest rates, is having a ship built in Holland. When it comes to buying in the cheapest market, they are as keen as any capitalist enterprise. They are having a ship built in Holland—and spending there thousands of pounds which might be spent in England—for the reason that it is cheaper to have it built in Holland. According to the figures I have, a ship of 230 tons can be built in Holland for something like £5,000 less than it could be in England. If any man can squeeze up enough money to pay the first instalment, he would be better advised, on purely economic grounds, to go to Holland and have a ship built there. I am afraid that these loans, as far as the coastal trade is concerned, will not help very considerably.
The coastal trade is a sea-bearing trade. In war time, all parts of the Mercantile Marine will be necessary, no matter where they are or what they are, but the coastal trade ships and men will be as much necessary as any other ships and men. These men have an intimate knowledge of our coasts, which deep-sea men have not, and if the coasts an; unlit, as was the case in the last war, this will be of great importance. The coastal trade will be absolutely essential far the distribution of foodstuffs round our coasts. One of the safest methods of distribution will be for the big ships to come into the ports and for food to be taken round the coasts in small ships. But if the ship are not there, that cannot be done. I do not think we shall get 1,673 Dutch coasters coming round our coasts in war time, when there is the chance of their being bombed, although I dare say a good many of them will come; but the more


British ships we have to do the work, the greater will be our security and the more satisfactorily shall we be able to ensure food supplies to our people, for all around our coasts are small ports, none of which is very far from a big town. I hope that between now and the Committee stage hon. Members will think over what I have said, and perhaps support any Amendments that are brought forward for the purpose of helping the coastal trade.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) has made a plea for assistance to the coastal trade. He said, very rightly from his point of view, that the railways and road transport seek and obtain a square deal, but that the coastal traffic gets no deal. On the other hand, the President of the Board of Trade says, with regard to the claim for a subsidy to the coastal services, that it would not be right for him to subsidise one form of internal transport against two other forms. The hon. and gallant Member must know that, if he will join with us in making an approach to the Government, there is a way of avoiding the necessity of asking for a subsidy and of meeting the competition from Dutch ships. He knows that I should have to oppose him on the question of working conditions, pay and hours, if it were a matter of making a comparison with the railways and road transport. Those employed on the railways and in road transport are paid a fixed wage for their work, they have a guaranteed 40-hour week, holidays with pay and amenities that are unknown to the men employed in the coastal services. It is common knowledge that on the National Maritime Board and in this House we have demanded an improvement of the conditions of officers employed on coastal ships, who are, in some cases, working from 80 to 100 hours a week.

Commander Marsden: Why should the hon. Member think that I would oppose him in wishing these conditions to be bettered? I might not agree entirely with him, but on the general purpose of improving conditions, I should be with him.

Mr. Smith: The point is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is associated with coastwise shipping, and I am afraid that

he has to bear the burden and heat of the day in this House when he makes his claims on behalf of the coastal trade. These conditions could be altered. Foreign competition could be effectively challenged if the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party would join with us in insisting that the whole of the coastal trade should be licensed on the basis of a scale of manning, accommodation, hours and conditions, so that no foreign competing ship, unless it fulfilled those conditions, would be permitted to take part in the coastal trade of this country. The solution is directly in the hands of the coastal trade, but I suggest that it cannot claim to have support in any or every direction unless it first puts its own house in order. What is the real element of competition from foreign ships? The President of the Board of Trade gave it as being 1½ per cent, of the total trade. I know that is not true, because between 70 and 80 per cent, of the coastal trade is more or less in the hands of one concern, and if it is the remainder of the coastal trade that really has to meet the element of foreign competition, the figure immediately rises from 1½ per cent, to 13 per cent., and to that section of the trade it is a real deterrent. However, I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the way out of this difficulty is not to ask for a form of financial assistance that will inevitably bring the coastal trade into competition with two other forms of internal transport, but to join with us in our endeavours to get a proper system of licensing for the protection of the home trade.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), with all the modesty which is inherent in shipowners individually and collectively, stakes a claim for a subsidy in perpetuity. He does not want a subsidy which is applicable only to bad times. He objects to the limitation of the period to five years. What he says, in effect, is: "If you will guarantee us a subsidy, in perpetuity if you like, or for an unspecified number of years, we will get busy in cutting the rates of the world to ribbons, knowing full well that we can always come back to the British taxpayer and be reimbursed for our losses." That is the effect of the statement which he has made here to-day. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that there was not much difference


between them. The difference is just that —between a subsidy for five years and a subsidy for an unlimited period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) put the case in its general aspect on this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade, with that eloquence which he always displays, both in this House any when he speaks over the air, tells us that whatever other industry might be allowed to go out of business, it is impossible to contemplate for a moment allowing the shipping industry to go out of business. I agree with him entirely, but when he talks about the high standard of the conditions enjoyed by seamen in this country, as compared with the conditions of seamen of other countries, I feel that I must intervene in order to let in a little light upon that subject, and with the permission of the Chair, I propose to do so. The hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches was greatly surprised at the conditions and accommodation in the newest ship afloat, namely the "Mauretania," but I assure him that those are not conditions which apply generally in the liner, coastal or tramp trades. I have, in the last year or two, put to the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Health, hundreds of questions on the conditions of seamen employed in British ships. I have urged the President of the Board of Trade and his officials to get away from that complacency which seems to have crept into the whole policy of the Board. I have asked them to look at the problem as it is, and I propose now to give the House a few figures, which are not of my own garnering but have been collected by port medical officers of health and handed on to the Ministry. They relate to the conditions which apply in both British and foreign ships in various ports in this country.
I take, first, the case of the port of Grimsby. I find from the report that the medical officer inspected 1,415 British ships. He found structural defects in 227; dirt, vermin and other conditions prejudicial to health in 185. The number of foreign ships inspected was 474. Dirt, vermin and other conditions inimical to health were found in only 38. The report also states that where lighting is deficient, and especially in forecastles where lighting by oil lamps has to be resorted to;

dirty and unhealthy conditions are frequently found. The report also gives figures of what are called nuisances which were found in ships as follows: dirty forecastles, 36; dirty cabins, 31; beds destroyed as verminous, 158; bunks, 82; food lockers, 93; dirty water tanks, 19; choked water closets, 34; verminous vessels, 239. The number of vessels fumigated was 192 and the number of vessels sprayed 52. That is a picture for the port of Grimsby alone, and that is only one report out of 102 submitted to the Minister each year. Let us take the great port of Liverpool next. The number of British ships inspected was 4,130 and the number of nuisances found was 605. In the case of foreign ships 1 349 were inspected and only 73 nuisances were found. So I think the right hon. Gentleman must really '' haul off '' this attitude of telling the House and the world what fine conditions exist for British seamen as compared with the seamen of other countries. There is a footnote to this report which says:
 Bug infestation of crews' quarters is a difficult problem but one that should not be beyond solution. Bugs are introduced into the vessels by men and the number of crews' quarters found to be infected is much too high. The unfortunate attitude adopted towards bug infestation seems to be that the condition is inevitable and that nothing can be done. This view can only be described as deplorable.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member said he proposed to go into these matters with the permission of the Chair. I am not sure whether this is relevant to the Bill which is under discussion.

Mr. Smith: Surely the relevance is this. A subsidy is to be paid for the assistance of British shipping. The President of the Board of Trade has claimed that British shipping generally has a higher standard in these respects than the shipping of other countries. I submit that I am entitled to give these facts in reply. I may mention to you, Sir, that on previous occasions when the question of subsidy has been under discussion, the Chair has not adopted an attitude against these factors being mentioned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That s a very improper observation to make. I was only making an inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman has made an observation which reflects on the Char.

Mr. Smith: I had no such intention I assure you Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would call your attention to the Amendment which refers to:
 the reorganisation of the industry and the all-round application of the National Maritime Board Agreements with respect to crews and wages.
I think that puts me within the terms of order. I was saying that in the case of Liverpool the number of nuisances discovered in ships was 3,918 including the following: dirty floors, tables and decks, 650; dirty bunks and bedding, 1,219; dirty partitions and ceilings, 394; accumulations of garbage and refuse, 121; dirty water tanks, 72; dirty and offensive bilges, 245. That brings to light the sort of thing that is going on in British ships to-day. Then take the case of the port of Cardiff, another essential port which deals with a good deal of our trade. In that case 4,068 ships, with a total tonnage of 3,920,000 were visited by inspectors, and the number of ships reported as having dirt, vermin and other conditions prejudicial to health was 880, whereas in the 466 foreign ships inspected only 167 nuisances were found. Again they set out the number of nuisances, which included food lockers 118, berths, wash basins, water pipes, and leaking decks 112, verminous crews' quarters 265, dirty crews' quarters 344, and foul accumulations 55.
These are real pictures as reported by the port medical officers of health on their examination and inspection of British ships. Then we get to Newport, another important shipping centre. In that case they examined 1,830 British ships, and they found 600 nuisances with dirt, vermin, and other conditions prejudicial to health. They examined 616 foreign ships, and the total number of nuisances discovered from vermin was 186. That again is a comparison that speaks better for the cleanliness of the foreign shipping system than for that of the British shipping system. What does the medical officer have to say? Twenty-two per cent, of the 2,400 vessels inspected had sanitary defects, according to the present standards laid down by the Board of Trade. He goes on to say:
 All these percentages of in sanitary vessels are higher than last year.
That is important. The types of nuisances and defects show that 78 per cent, of the

nuisances were due to lack of care and sanitary supervision of the living quarters, while 21 per cent, were due to defective structural conditions. With regard to individual nuisances discovered, dirt and verminous crews' quarters, berths, washbasins, etc., accounted for 44.7 per cent., foul water closets 7.8 per cent., defective and dirty food lockers 27.8 per cent., and foul accumulations 3.8 per cent. One could go on reading the whole 102 reports. Dirt, vermin, and other conditions prejudicial to health accounted for 786 cases, or a total of 78.8 per cent.

Sir Douglas Thomson: That has nothing to do with the structure of the ships at all.

Mr. Smith: No, but it goes on to speak of structural defects caused through wear and tear. Now we get to the Port of Glasgow, and there is much the same story to tell. One could go on reading about port after port, where the medical officer of health condemns the whole system of British shipping. I put a question on 9th March last to the Minister of Health, who is responsible more or less for this side of the merchant seaman's life, and I asked him for
particulars of the nuisances and defects in vessels reported by port medical officers of health in respect of the year 1937 (the last available year) showing the number of vessels inspected, the number of British and foreign vessels, respectively, and the number of defects of original construction, structural defects through wear and tear, and cases of dirt, vermin and other conditions prejudicial to health? 
Here is the reply:
According to the information contained in the annual reports so far received of the medical officers of health of the port health and riparian districts of England and Wales for 1937, and otherwise supplied to me, the following are the particulars desired by the hon. Member:



British Vessels.
Foreign Vessels.


Number of vessels inspected during the year
66,087
29,865


Defects of original construction
2,148
1,845


Structural defects through wear and tear
5,630
2,020


Dirt, vermin, and other conditions prejudicial to health
10,578
2,747


—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1939; cols. 2330–1, Vol. 344.]


That is the Ministerial reply to my question, and if that does not justify the statements that I have made, and shall continue to make, I do not know what will.


When subsidies are asked for by shipowners, we claim that those owners shall utilise some portion of the subsidies to render the British seaman more immune from disease and able to live under more healthy conditions, and to give him the benefit of at least some semblance of decent conditions. I know that there are shipowners, in this House and outside who play the game, and who come to me and say, when they are building a new ship, that to put in the accommodation that we seek will cost them £400 to £500 additional, and there are plenty of shipowners who do it, but I am dealing with what I must call the scallywags—there is no other word for them—who will get away with State money and put into the mouth of the Minister that this is a highly efficient service, a healthy service, whose conditions are so good when compared with those on the ships of other countries. Generally speaking, that is not true, though specifically speaking, of course, it is true.
What is the use of being mealy-mouthed about the thing? Let us face the issue and have done with it. The fact is that nearly all the old tonnage of British ships is lousy and bug infested, and the crews' quarters are in many instances such that hon. Members opposite would not put a dog in or stable a horse in ashore, yet human beings are compelled to live their lives and have their being under such primitive and filthy conditions. I claim, on behalf of men with whom I myself served many years ago, when the conditions in many cases were much worse than they are now, that if this subsidy is to be granted to shipowners, a condition of its granting should be that the crews' quarters, the general living accommodation of the crews, should be put on the highest possible standard of efficiency commensurate with the health and comfort of the people who earn their living in those ships. It is not fair that a shipping industry valued, according to the President of the Board of Trade, at no higher a figure than £150,000,000 to £200,000,000, or less, I am given to understand, than the total capital employed in the London Midland and Scottish Railway, should get away with the help that they are demanding, and that the Government are affording them, unless they play the game by the people who are earning for the State, year by

year, no less a figure than £80,000,000 in, as I believe it is called, invisible exports. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade "Going on the air" as he did on 17th June to ask men who have served under these conditions to go back to them on behalf of their country; men who have got ashore into decent cleanly houses and have been able to rehabilitate their pride; asking them, on behalf of what Ruskin called, I think, "ilth," which is illgotten wealth, to offer their services again under such conditions as I have put before the House. I leave that aspect of the case, but I think it was right that attention should be focused on it, in the hope that something will be done to improve the conditions.
Coming to the method of the subsidy, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash and, I suppose, others connected especially with the tramp side of the industry., are highly pleased that this subsidy is to be given unaccompanied by any really irksome conditions; but the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that although the subsidy is being given in peace time yet behind it there i9 the shadow of what he called an emergency period, that is, a likelihood of war. I believe that the total number of ships laid down is 150; that it is approximately 1,000,000 tons of shipping, built or building, which is in the offing. It is true that this country cannot live without an effectual Mercantile Marine. By virtue of its island position it must import the greater part of its raw materials and foodstuffs, and in time of war the essentials for the maintenance not only of the people at home but of the forces sent abroad.
I would ask the Government why they have not considered speed as a condition of subsidy. To show the amount of tonnage that was lost in the last War I will quote from a gentleman named Liddell-Hart, who said in the Press last Sunday when dealing with the German submarine attacks in 1917:
 Although some 3,000 destroyers and auxiliary patrol craft were employed to combat them, they took so high a toll in one month, April, 1917, that nearly 1,000,000 tons of shipping were sunk. One ship out of every four left our ports never to return, and this country was brought perilously near to starvation. In all, they sank 11,000,000 tons of shipping during the War, equal to the total tonnage of the British Mercantile Marine at the beginning of this year 1939.


I put it to the Government that they would have been wiser to give so much more subsidy for each additional knot of speed. Germany, Japan, Italy and Russia have all adopted the system of payment of subsidies for speed, and that is really one of the reasons why we have been pushed out of the Orient—that they have faster and more comfortable vessels.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: With regard to the losses which the hon. Member has mentioned he will remember that those immense losses were a direct result of the unrestricted submarine warfare which was put into operation by Germany, contrary to all the ancient rules of the sea. I do not see that there is anything very humorous in that.

Mr. Pritt: It would happen again.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: If the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) had been one of the crew on board one of those ships she would not have found it quite so funny.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member rose, I thought, to ask a question. He cannot make a speech.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I apologise if I was overstepping the bounds, but I wanted to ask the hon. Member to remember what was the cause of the immense losses, and that it was not a question of speed.

Mr. Smith: What I am saying is that low speed will be the reason for far greater losses in the event of a future war. The hon. and gallant Admiral seems to think that when you go to war you draw up a set of rules as for the boxing ring and that somebody says "Foul" if you "do the dirty" on your opponent. That is not my experience of war, and I am sure it is not his. War is the only occasion when every attribute of manhood other than pluck, "guts" and bravery is thrown overboard. If the successful prosecution of war and the life of this nation do depend on the volume of supplies reaching us from overseas, surely the Government must regard the speed of our merchant ships an important factor. It is agreed that we nearly lost the last War through the depletion of our Mercantile Marine by German submarines. Although the convoy system saved us from collapse we were at

no time after the middle of 1915 able to build ships at a rate to keep pace with our losses. In one quarter our losses were 687,000 tons and the new ships completed totalled only 320,000 tons. Our available cargo space to-day is, I believe, 25 per cent, less than it was in 1913–14.
There is another aspect of the matter which has not been touched upon in the discussion. I believe I am right in saying that whereas a ton of accoutrements and supplies went abroad with every soldier in the last War, owing to the mechanisation of the Army, 12 tons will be nearer the figure in the future, and that will mean more space occupied in our ships and a need of more ships. The advantage of speed to our merchant ships is this: The average speed of a submarine on the surface is about 16 knots and under the surface about 10 knots. If the 150 ships that are being laid down have a speed not above 10 or 10 knots it is fair to assume that they will be admirable targets for enemy submarines.
Further, with the type of the old tonnage and the type of the new, the assembly of convoys creates the most efficient target for anybody, especially when one remembers that the majority of tonnage that we lost during the War was not lost on the high seas but at the entrances of ports and at this end of the trade routes of this country. The advent of the faster motor torpedo boat makes it possible, I agree, that even faster ships may be attacked by them, but the fact remains that if we had faster ships we would get, first of all, the advantage that no existing submarine could compete on the surface and could not compete at speed under the water.
That is the first thing. The second is that we should be able to do away with the convoy system as such, and with the whole gamut of war vessels, surrounding, head on and stern on either side, and convoying, a number of ships. Those vessels could be released for more effective work. At the same time by having the higher speed, with which I presume would go a larger tonnage, we should be getting the advantage of a quicker turn round and less time in port, which would have the effect not only of releasing ships for war service but of better supplying the needs of the nation with much less risk. It is well known that the three countries which I have


mentioned are already subsidising their ships on the basis of speed. I will give a few particulars of these subsidies.
Japan has tankers and reconstructed tankers going up to 19 knots an hour. In Italy there are subsidies for ships over 14 knots, the subsidies increasing with the speed. A refitting subsidy is given for older vessels—none of that is contemplated in the present proposals—provided that the speed is increased by not less than three knots. A large number of cargo vessels in Italy are now being built with a speed of 16 knots. In America, subsidies are based on size and speed. There is an operating subsidy on distance run, and the speed of existing tankers is being increased to 16 knots. Twenty-four tankers are laid down now to have a speed of 18½knots. There are cargo ships of 7,000 tons that have been lengthened and fitted with new engines and boilers which increase their speed to 16 or 18 knots an hour. Cargo ships under construction are to have a speed of 16½knots. The report of the Imperial Shipping Committee states that German and Italian liners get substantial subsidies the effect of which has been to produce vessels of higher speed than can be justified for commercial reasons.
When we come to British ships, what arguments are adduced against speed? One argument is that it is uneconomical to run the ships. How long has it been that we study economy when war is with us? If faster ships are subsidised and faster speed is achieved, it is fair to assume that in peace time the owner, as with naval vessels, can run his ship at less speed and, therefore, with a lower consumption of fuel. Furthermore, one aspect of the shipowners' attitude, especially the tramp people, is that they like slow ships because these act as storage while the brokers in the market are able to manipulate prices and sell cargoes on the high seas. That is true. I have known for many years ships to lie up with grain for weeks at a time and pay a full crew, waiting for a market. Anybody who knows about shipping will agree that that is true.
The question of cost arises immediately. If we are to look at speed from the point of view of subsidy what will be the additional cost? I am credibly informed that cargo ships of 9,000 tons at 12 knots

would cost us now about £150,000. A similar ship at 16 knots would cost £225,000. I see an hon. Member opposite who knows something about this subject scratching his head, probably wondering whether that figure is approximately correct. Anyway, it was given to me from a source which I believe is well founded. It states that the total additional cost would be about £15,000,000, and for the faster vessels £22,500,000. Is that a prohibitive figure if it enables us to do away with convoys and to get a quicker turn round and a better service during a time of apprehension or of actual war? I venture to suggest that, if the Government would consider the matter from that aspect, in the influx of new ships built under the conditions of the accommodation regulations in 1937, they would see an economic and military advantage, because those ships would eliminate in the course of a few-years those conditions to which I have had to direct the attention of the House and which exist in the obsolete ships that we have to-day. I, therefore, ask hon. Members when thinking of tonnage to see whether the Government are prepared to consider the question of changing the incidence of subsidy from a matter of bad trade and applying it merely on the basis of speed.
Much has been said about the Orient and the place of British shipping in general. Most of us have looked at the report of the committee which was set up in 1930 and reported in December, 1939. A month ago I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had done anything to bring about co-ordination with all the Dominions as recommended in that report. I was told that the matter was under consideration and that he had nothing to report. Yesterday I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman and the reply was that he had nothing to add to the statement which he had given me so long ago. The fact remains that, in the Orient, our trade is being taken from us daily, one might almost say hourly. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash was talking about the Totalitarian States. Naturally, as one who believes in private enterprise and private profit, the hon. and gallant Gentleman objects to any suggestion of nationalisation. What he does not object to is that the industry should make no success of a job and should then come


here and get public money to put it right. It is not only asking for assistance over the next five years but for ever and ever, provided that bad times continue in their trade.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at paragraph 317 of the Imperial Shipping Committee's report, because he will see that it states:
 Another important source of strength behind Japanese shiping competition is the high degree of organisation, in part vertical and in part horizontal, which characterises the economic life of Japan. It is this which gives her merchants the power of routing cargo, bought in foreign ports for import into Japan, by Japanese ships. It is this also, in its financial aspect, which places such strength behind Japan's shipping companies.
That is the report of the committee which has gone into the whole question. It says on page 318:
 In contrast to such concentration of strength, we have on the British side an absence of concentration, evident not merely in the number of the Governments which rule the British Commonwealth along its Eastern front, but also in the divided control of traffic.
Then it goes on, page 319:
 No narrow view, confined strictly to shipping interests, will bring to light the reasons for the relative decline in the British mercantile marine in the Orient.
They say:
 Tonnage of shipping is only one element in the carrying trade. There must be adequate cargo offering for conveyance, and fluid capital organised to finance its movement. In the large national interest import and export merchants are partners of shippers in a common venture. In the United Kingdom the conditions have been such that no attempt has been made to give formal expression to this interdependence of three interests.
Therein, I suggest, lie most of the difficulties that apply not only to the shipping in the Orient, but to shipping in general. Shipowners are great individualists. They want to run their ships in their own way in competition with other countries and with other competing interests in their own country. But what they are really up against is the perpendicular and lateral economic system in places like Japan, Italy and Germany. Frankly, if we are ever going to fight them to get back the trade of this country, it seems to me that the type of subsidy which the Government think of applying to remedy the existing ills will be futile. Far better that they should face the issue of meeting the ships of foreign competitors speed by speed, size by size, capacity by capacity,

and then go out into the world seeking the trade, and I am positive that, with the knowledge which the shipowners possess, and the good sense of the British seamen, they could face foreign competition with confidence. But the British seaman has never been asked to co-operate with the shipowners or with the Government in support of his trade. Never is it suggested that he should join any of these committees, that he can bring any thought to bear for the assistance of his own industry. No, he is a mere hewer of wood and drawer of water. He is the man who just does the work under the conditions I have mentioned.
Then it has been said that the National Maritime Board is the one place to which all the grievances must gravitate. How is the National Maritime Board composed? Is it a body which could, as it were, give the right pitch with regard to the wages and conditions of seamen? The conditions laid down are that any panel that is set up must have a majority of both sides who are concerned in a dispute. In the event of disagreement the question has to go to the whole board, and then there is no right of appeal, but the case can go to arbitration where a lawyer must be employed, whose decision will not be final or binding. What sort of conditions will that bring about when it comes to the masters? Never have the masters been called together for a period of approximately 20 years, but I understand that to-day, when subsidies are under discussion, an offer has been made to the. men. They have said that they would like to discuss with the men the calling together of a masters' panel, and to their honour the men have stated that this scrappy and jerky way is not the way to deal with these questions. "Far rather," they say, "that you should meet properly and lay down a proper constitution, so that we can bring into being the only panel that would work satisfactorily." I hope ultimately that through those panels for the complete co-ordination of all employed within the industry, conditions may be established for the benefit of those concerned and of the industry as a whole.

9.30 p.m.

Sir D. Thomson: I shall be brief and shall not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith), excepting the first part of his speech. He spoke about the crews'


accommodation, and I think he will have very general sympathy in all parts of the House and in the industry in the efforts he has made to improve crews' accommodation. I interrupted him, for which I apologise, to give the figures, and I should like to repeat them once again. In the British ships that were examined 5,600 had structural defects, and 10,600, approximately, suffered from dirty berths. The structural defects are a matter difficult to deal with, but the other matter is one that could be dealt with, but it is not entirely in the control of the shipowners. But it is a matter which can be dealt with, and, as the hon. Member knows, steps are being taken to deal with this matter as quickly as possible.
I feel some diffidence in being the third back bencher to speak from this side of the House. The second was directly interested in the trade, and I feel diffident because on this occasion it is a question of the liner defence fund, and I am interested in the liner trade. I do not propose to deal with the general merits of the proposal to subsidise shipping. I, personally, take the view that shipping is an export trade like any other; it competes in the markets of the world and sells transport in the open market. If the Liberal party were present at this moment we might be told that if an export trade does not pay, then it should be allowed to die. At the present time, of course, the position is taken out of the Shipowners' hands, because it is not a question of whether an industry is paying or not, it is a question of defence. We are faced with foreign subsidised ships, and in great measure those subsidies are paid in order to obtain or retain the foreign exchange, but in this country we must retain our merchant marine.
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was not quite fair when he said that the shipowners come along cap in hand asking for subsidies. That is not a fair statement at the present time. The shipowners have been asked to maintain the numbers of our ships, which economically cannot be made to pay. If that is the case, and if, for defence purposes, we are asked to have more ships than economically be made to pay, it is hardly fair to say that the shipping trade is coming cap in hand for subsidies, when they are really being asked to do this in the national interest.
I should like to make a few remarks on the question of the liner defence fund. The liner problem is one of enormous complexity. There are ships like the "Queen Mary," and there are the large ships such as I myself am interested in, and the small vessels that would easily go into this Chamber, that ply across the North Sea and in the shore trade. I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the words in the Bill and the White Paper, "foreign subsidised competition" are too narrow. The object, I agree, is that the fund should be available to assist, after inquiry, any line that has proved a case. I think wider terms of reference should be drafted. There is the specific instance of a line running from the East Coast of Scotland to Latvia, and in competition with lower wages and lower conditions they cannot make the line pay. They may have to go out of business. Under these terms of reference they have no right to go to the committee at all, and ask them to look into their case. It is also pertinent to say that under this Bill they have no right to sell their line and their goodwill to their competitors, because their ships must remain under the British flag.
There is the other case of the Anchor Line and similar lines where the element of foreign competition does not come in. Suppose, for example, that a. route from New Zealand round the Cape to this country were subsidised, would the Parliamentary Secretary say that a line running via Suez should get the subsidy because the other line was in competition with it? It is very often the case in all parts of the world that there are two routes which can be used, and it may or may not be the case that ships on one or other of them are subsidised. I think my right hon. Friend said that cases such as that of the Anchor Line, or the case I have just instanced from Australia, where there is a subsidy and a lowerstandard of living, could be referred to the Liner Advisory Committee. I can not see how they can be. The White Paper says that the Liner Advisory Committee will be set up to advise the Board of Trade on any applications for financial assistance under the scheme, but if a line was not qualified to apply because it had not either foreign or subsidised competition, or both, it could hardly go to the Liner Advisory Committee. I am not


asking that these lines should be given a subsidy, but merely that the terms of reference should be made as wide as possible, so that they may have the opportunity of stating their case.
Another point is that, in my opinion, the committee proposed for the liner defence fund is far too small. I do not think it is good to have a large committee, because probably it would not get the business done, but here there is only a chairman, who is probably impartial and independent, with two other members from the industry. Even if all three are from the industry, they cannot possibly cover the whole of this very complex industry. You may have one man who represents big ships, and one who represents small ships, neither having any knowledge of medium-sized ships. It is a complex industry, and I think that, if the committee could be increased to four or five, it would be more valuable.
There is one type of competition which cannot be met under the Bill, but which the President of the Board of Trade may perhaps be able to meet in another direction. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) is here, because he has put questions to the President of the Board of Trade about the large quantities of canned salmon which are at present in store at Liverpool. I will give the House an instance of what is happening. About 250,000 cases of canned salmon, each containing 100 tins or thereabouts, are at present in the North Island of Japan. No British line is allowed to go there, for strategic or other reasons. This large quantity of about 9,000 tons of canned salmon is coming to this country from Japan, and it must come in Japanese bottoms. How that can be met I do not venture to suggest, but it is a type of competition which should be and must be met, because it is quite a large trade which is being deliberately put by the Japanese into their own nationals' ships.
It is not possible now to discuss the details of the loan scheme, but there are two points on which I should like to make some criticism. In the first place, why has it been decided that the borrower under the loan scheme shall defer for two years the payment of any instalments? That period represents a tenth of the life of the ship, and two of the best years of her life. I venture to suggest that it

would be imprudent to allow repayments to be deferred for two years. In the second place, could not the amount to be advanced by way of loan be limited to, say, 75 or 80 per cent. of the value of the ship, instead of the whole 100 per cent.? I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I have been critical of the Bill, but I think the whole industry is most grateful to him for the interest he has taken in this extremely difficult and complex subject.

9.40 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: The hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson) has said that shipowners are not asking for a subsidy, but only for compensation for having to maintain ships which are uneconomic, but anyone who has been reading the trade papers for months past cannot have read an issue in which some section of the trade was not asking for a subsidy. It seems to me that the question of defence represents the only way in which the Government could think up a decent excuse for giving public money to the shipowners who manage their industry on the whole so badly. Those of us who come from shipping constituencies have listened to hon. Members in this Debate whose attitude has been that British shipowners have a right to keep a dominant position in the world's shipping trade in spite of the fact that this Government has had its Ottawa policy, and that it has done nothing but fix up tariffs and quotas ever since the last Election. Nearly all of this has affected our shipping, which nevertheless still expects to keep its predominant position in the world's trade, despite the fact that this Government is responsible for the tariff on steel, the result of which is that British steel is the most expensive in the world, and that the cost of ship construction in this country is correspondingly increased. We have already told the right hon. Gentleman that.
The Government have also encouraged National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, to close down yards and to become, as shipowners have prophesied would happen, a builders' ring, with the result that we had Lord Craigmyle complaining not long ago that the Canadian Pacific Line could not give orders for two ships that they were intending to order in this country because the tender was about £1,000,000 higher than the next lowest tender for the two ships. The present


position has been reached, not as a result of an act of God, nor as the result of a crisis in the world, although there is a crisis, but also because of the policy of this Government, which, whatever it has done in other directions, has had a most disastrous effect on the shipping industry as a whole. As a result of the joint efforts of (this Government, the shipowners, and National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, we have reached a period of chaos, and the Government come forward with this Bill in order that the British taxpayer may save them from a national danger.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) agreed with the hon. Member for South Aberdeen that shipowners do not want a subsidy, do not like the idea of it, and do not want any national control at all," but, by the time he had finished his speech, he had not only demanded a subsidy, but had demanded that the British market should be restricted to British shipowners. By the time they have arranged all that, there will be nothing for them to do but simply to pocket the profits, and not only the profits that they make themselves, but the profits which are supplied to them by way of a subsidy out of the pocket of the British taxpayer. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash challenged me to say how this situation was to be met; but how does this subsidy proposal meet the situation? You cannot get away from the fact that the net effect of the subsidy is simply to guarantee a profit to the shipowners. It does nothing at all to deal with those radical difficulties of the shipping industry which have reduced constituencies like the one for which I speak to a state of industrial decay. It was not a Member on this side, but the "Shipping World" which said that the subsidy is a drug, when the patient should be given a complete overhaul.
The trouble about this subsidy, for those of us who think something more radical is needed, is that inevitably it will lead to reprisals. The Minister himself threatened reprisals. His idea was that, while shipowners had been subjected to the minimum freight rate, he recognised that there was under-cutting, and he said that if other nations wanted an under-

cutting war the Government would be prepared to stand behind our shipowners in giving it to them. But has he contemplated what, in fact, a real rate war between the various nations subsidising their shipping would mean? Take a flat rate of 10s. a ton. Britain would have to subsidise roughly 17,000,000 tons of shipping. What about our nearest competitors? Germany would have to subside 4,000,000 tons, Japan 5,000,000 tons, Italy 3,000,000 tons and Norway 4,000,000 tons. Admitting the difference in national resources, imagine those nations engaging on an economic rate war with us when we have 17,000,000 tons to subsidise. I hope that before the President of the Board of Trade light-heartedly lands us into a rate war he will consider what the effect will be on the unfortunate taxpayer.
The next question is, when is this subsidy going to stop? Sir Westcott Abell, of Newcastle, who is regarded by us in the north-east as one of the great pundits in the shipping world, stated in a letter which some of us have received that it was absurd to talk, as shipowners were doing, of a £50,000,000 subsidy; that in order to put the industry on its feet something like £100,000,000 was wanted. The Minister has come along with this proposal for £26,000,000. All this money is to be poured out, and in the whole scheme there is not one jot of public control. There are to be 20 shipowners, and the Minister does not even propose to put a public representative on the committee. It really takes one's breath away. I am not one of the old-fashioned laissez-faire Liberals, but when the Minister, who has made so many speeches—to say nothing of hon. Members behind him—about national economy, gets going on a subsidy of this sort he just ladles the stuff out.
What is wrong with the whole of the shipping industry? We were told by the various Ministers who have justified National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, that here was a scheme by which the industry would be put on its feet. The Minister's predecessor and the Minister himself have justified this wonderful idea in that way. Sir James Lithgow, who happens to be a constituent of mine, argued that as a result no man would be displaced, but at the begining of 1939 nearly 40,000 were out of jobs. Here


were National Shipbuilding securities, Limited, with the Bank of England behind them, being allowed to work out their policy, and what is the result? The Minister quoted from the "Daily Telegraph" a statement that we were sending representatives to Canada to arrange for ships. Here we have closed down magnificent yards, and the machinery has been bought at knockdown prices by Belgian yards, which, when there was a shortage of shipping, undercut us hopelessly by means of the very machinery that they had bought at scrap prices from the Jarrow shipyards.
There is perhaps something to be said for the soul of the Conservative party. Its Members do leave the defence of this dirty work to the shipowners who are going to profit by it. These people say that this is the most marvellous industry there ever was, and that there must be no national control because it is so marvellous. Look at this marvellous industry. Look at Jarrow, and at the hundreds of thousands of pounds that have had to be put into that town, in Poor Law relief and one thing and another, while the shipyard is not even kept going on a maintenance basis. We have an industrial cemetery there, and its machinery is being used to undercut our own industry. When these people have got us into that kind of mess we give them £26,500,000 of public money in order to keep them going.
You cannot divorce the shipping industry from the steel industry. There, again, you have exactly the same sort of thing as in National Shipbuilding Securities. They have had these tremendous powers behind a high tariff. These powers were given under promise of reorganisation. Now we see the same thing for the thirdtime—this assistance given and the vague promise that somehow or other they will reorganise themselves. There is nothing in the Bill as to what will be done if a measure of reorganisation which satisfies this Government is not carried out—andthis Government is easily satisfied when it comes to proof of need for the shipowners; I wish the Minister of Labour were as easily satisfied when it comes to proof of need on the part of the unemployed. The steel users are complaining and the shipbuilders are complaining. They say that they have to charge this

tremendous price because of the high price of steel compared with the price at which they could get it if it were not for the cartel.
If ever there was a case which was justified to the hilt for some real scientific control of industry in the national interest, it is the case of the shipping industry. Everybody in this House is agreed that the shipping industry is vital to our existence. Those of us who went through the last War do not need to be reminded of that fact. If it is as vital as all that, can it possibly be left in the care of the men who have mismanaged it so completely until now? I want to be fair in these matters, and I agree that, if you took the example perhaps of an individual shipping line, you might point to a perfect miracle of organisation, but that is not the kind of watertight organisation of which I am speaking. A concern that may be so well organised that it goes like clockwork may be making a frightful mess of things in the shipping world. We have had booms and slums, and Jarrow shipyard had to keep up the capacity for building 60,000 tons at a time when there were only orders for a thousand tons on the stocks. The system of individual cutthroat competition has failed. Hon. Members opposite must admit that it has failed, and the only thing we have had put in its place is National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, which has introduced a very close and tightly drawn price ring in place of certain chaotic competition, but it shows very little regard indeed for the national interest.
The shipping industry profiteered during the last War to an extent that no other industry profiteered, and it had huge profits to distribute at the end of the War It made profits to such an extent that the Prime Minister at that time said that he was ashamed of what he saw. They are now coming along, and are to be given taxpayers' money. In the interest of common decency, before this subsidy is handed out to the shipping industry, there ought to be an organising committee on which the public interest is predominantly represented. Is it too much to ask that from a Conservative Government? Such an organisation should have been insisted upon. Every shilling of the money to be handed out ought to be under public control. We do not know what may happen should an emergency come upon us. Our


very life may depend on this industry, and yet the only thing that the Government can do is to shovel out public money to those who mave mismanaged the industry in the past. Hon. Members, rather than congratulate the Government on bringing in this Bill, ought to insist on the Government taking it back again until they can do something which is at least founded upon decency.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like for a few minutes to deal with the main point of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), who seems to think that we on this side of the House and those connected with the industry are not prepared to justify our belief in this Bill. I have informed the hon. Lady in another connection that what mainly concerns me is the concentration of unemployment which exists in Liverpool, which I have the honour to represent. Of the 70,000 odd unemployed who were there last December, 40 per cent. were connected with this industry. That is one aspect of the matter with which we are vitally concerned. These sections of the population who represent so much in the contribution to national effectiveness should not be compelled to wait on the theorising of the hon. Lady before some assistance is given in bringing them back to work.
We further take the point of view that at the present time, when British ships have declined by 2,000 since before the War, and the ships of other countries have increased by7,000, it is idle for anyone to say that there has not been a concerted, definite and deliberate action on the part of the Governments of other countries to load the dice against the industry within our land. The position to-day is that, whereas in 1916,before the submarine blockade came to its height, we had 3,500 ocean-going ships, and over 3,000 available to do the work of this country, we have now only 2,300. At that time 1,100 of these ships were required for the needs of the Army and the Navy. Is the hon. Lady really content to wait until her theories are put into practice before we take some steps to remedy the position that there might be only 1,200 ships available for doing the ordinary carrying work of the country if we went into war to-morrow? Surely this

is the time for immediate action, and it is because my right hon. Friend suggests that immediate action that we are behind him to-day.
I am prepared to meet—and I will meet it, I hope, quite fully—the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin well) made regarding the objections he has to the method which is suggested in this Bill. As I understood his argument, to which I listened with all the care that I could, it was that the subsidy amount should not be granted until there was some measure of control, and that some guarantee of that sort should be given at the present time. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that we are dealing with two major aspects of this problem to-day. First of all the new one of the intended assistance to liners, and our old friend, which we have discussed so often, the question of the tramp section of the industry. The hon. Gentleman said that in the liner proposals there was no question of public control and no question of considering the more general aspect of public needs. I ask him to look at the provisions of the White Paper in this regard. He will remember that the Liner-Services Defence Committee is only a reporting committee which has to look into four special points, including the causation of the bad position of the applicant, and the other methods by which that could be put right apart from subsidy, the method of paying the subsidy if one should be granted, and whether it would affect any other portion of the industry.
These are all matters on which the Liner-Services Defence Committee has to report, and it has to have in mind in making the report exactly the matters practically in the words the hon. Gentleman used in his speech. They have to decide what other interests—for example shippers and merchants are specially mentioned—are affected. In other words, it is the province of the Liner-Services Defence Committee to put before the Board of Trade the facts as they see them, and public control is maintained because the ultimate piece of administration must be done by the Board of Trade, that is by the Government, representing the public. By that method you have obtained a reporting committee of the highest efficiency and you have retained in public hands and public control the ultimate executive act which must take place.

Mr. Shinwell: Since the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to something that I said, I would remind him that the point of real substance in my remarks as regards the liner defence fund was that the proposal was too restricted in its scope, and that the subsidy should not be solely contingent upon subsidised competition from other maritime countries but should take into account all relevant factors in relation to the British Mercantile Marine.

Mr. Fyfe: The provisions contain exactly, practically in so many words, what the hon. Gentleman suggested. On page 21 of the White Paper not only is the Liner Services Defence Committee to take into account these four matters which I have mentioned in paragraph 3, but in paragraph 4 (a)they must have regard to the interests of British shippers, merchants and manufacturers who are or may appear to them to be concerned in the matter, and in paragraph (b) the maintenance of conference arrangements. If the hon. Member will combine what is contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 he will find that practically every aspect of British shipping is embraced in the combined paragraphs.

Mr. Shinwell: The best person to settle this matter is the right hon. Gentleman himself. I understood him to say that this did not apply to all liners and all trades, and I have asked him to-day to apply it to all liners and all trades.

Mr. Fyfe: It applies to all liners which choose to make this application to make use of this machinery. The hon. Gentleman said these provisions were very vague. I have now read them and, in fairness to the argument, which I know he wished to present fairly, it is difficult to find more express or more inclusive words to embrace the various problems which meet the shipowner to-day. I want to deal with a point that the hon. Member made on the other aspect of the case. The obligation that is placed on the tramp section of the industry is to continue the operations which were brought into being by the committee which administered the subsidy between 1934 and 1937, and it emphasised again and again that this is an international matter and that the committee must take every step that is possible to investigate the international complications and again report to the Board of Trade. To object to that as a practical method of dealing

with the problem of tramp shipping is again to go very far from the actualities of the industry.
I would ask the House whether there are not some conditions which we are all agreed should be attached to any subsidy. One is that there is proof of unfair foreign competition. I ask hon. Members, irrespective of party, with regard, on the one hand, to the trade between India and Japan, where Japan has now, I think, 73 per cent. of the whole trade—63 per cent, of Bombay and 73 per cent. of Calcutta trade, where she had practically none before the War—can anyone say that deliberate national action on the part of Japan can be excluded from that? Can anyone say that deliberate national action—it may be from the most excellent motives—on the part of the Russian Government is not responsible for the fact that so much of our imports from Russia are carried in Russian bottoms? Can anyone say that there was not unfair competition in the American lines in the Pacific? For three years I have been pleading for consideration of that matter.
If that is the position, if unfair competition is established, if it is established that a vital national interest is attacked by that competition and, finally, it guarantees are obtained for the efficient running of the industry to which it is suggested that subsidies should be given, who can object in the present state of the world to that subsidy being put forward at the present time? The hon. Gentleman said he would add a further condition —the exclusion of private gain. I ask him to consider at the moment, dealing with the question, which I know is so much in his mind, that to-day we are short of ships, that, as he knows as well as I do, instead of 196,000 in our Mercantile Marine we have only 161,000, and we have 20,000 fewer fishermen to come into service if war were to start to-morrow, is there not before the House ample evidence of the necessity of swift and immediate assistance being given? I am sure he will allow me to combine with that an appeal for those in the industry who are out of work in Liverpool, which I know so well, and in other ports which hon. Members know just as well, and, tacking on to it the requirements of our national safety and assistance for those who are out of work, I have no shame, but pride and gratification, in supporting this legislation.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: The Government are asking the nation to-night to subsidise private ownership of shipping in this country to the extent of £25,000,000. We are told that without that subsidy our seaborne traffic may fail us. We are told that many firms are verging upon bankruptcy and that the banks who, in fact, own so many of these shipping concerns now refuse to continue finding money for their development. We have heard some extraordinary statements from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith), who has so much experience in organising seamen, about the scandalous conditions under which many of our seamen are housed. Taking all in all, our shipping industry does appear to be in need of some kind of assistance.
There have been many contributory causes of the parlous plight of this essential industry. Doubtless, there is a drying up of international trade, there are surreptitious subsidies being paid by foreign Governments, but surely in all parts of the House it will be readily admitted that competitive capitalism as a system is itself very heavily responsible for the condition of our shipping industry to-day. We have had fat years as well as lean ones, and in the fat years there has been waste and dissipation of essential resources. That is the common experience in every form of competitive capital, but nowhere in our economic history has there been anything to compare with the crazy profit ramps of the later war years in our shipping business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has described a speech, which I have looked up, of a Conservative Prime Minister, the late Mr. Bonar Law, who, standing at that Box, on 24th May, 1917, declared that he was positively ashamed of the shipping investments that he held and the extraordinary profits that were being returned to him out of the nation's needs. He described how, after paying all excess profit, and other forms of taxation, he was being handed an annual return of 47 per cent., during the darkest hour of the nation's history. The representative of the Ministry of Shipping stood at that Box and said that in the first 31 months of war the shipowners of this country had squeezed out of the nation profits to the extent of £350 000 000. In addition, there

were great inflations of values. Ships that were sunk by German torpedoes yielded their proprietors more profit at the bottom of the sea than they did at the top, in heavy insurances and heavy values. In some cases they are yielding them now, five times their original capital that was sunk in the business.
There is one firm of Furness Withy and Company who in August, 1919, handed out to their shareholders £2,000,000 in bonus shares from an undisclosed reserve, and in addition they had on open reserve of £1,800,000. Another firm, the Tatem Steam Navigation Company, with a capital of £350,000 distributed over £1,000,000 in war loan script as a special gift to their shareholders. Owners got compensation of £104,000,000 from the nation for ships sunk the original cost of which was only £51,000,000, and there was the famous case of the Runciman Moor Line which wound up its fortunate life by handing out to its shareholders £14 for every £1 of script they held. These facts are undeniable, and there are thousands like them. Then came the lean years, the reserves had gone, there was not sufficient in the pool to meet the difficult times. The owners of this industry then come to the nation and say that they are in difficulties, they cannot carry on, they have to meet an intensified competition on the high seas; they have squandered their reserves and the Government must now come to their assistance.
How is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to face this question? No one blames him for the position. He has a difficult problem. He has an industry which even yet will not voluntarily reorganise itself. He has an industry in which the firms are losing money by competing against other firms, sending their vessels upon voyages in which they lose money in a wasteful, ruinous and stupid competition. He has an industry in which, for all we know to the contrary, the banks are seeking to get rid of the watered stock which they hold. The right hon. Gentleman, probably rightly, divides this problem into four parts and treats them separately. He says, first of all, that he will give a subsidy to tramp shipping provided that they are not engaged in the coastal trade. He does not ask them whether they need it or not. He asks them to make some attempt at reorganisation, whatever that may mean.


that they will agree to make some attempt at rationalisation, and then he will give them some State money.
There is no pretence that all these firms require it, but the right hon. Gentleman does not do for the tramp shipping owner what he does for the liner owner, that is, impose a needs test. As far as I can see, all that he asks from the tramp shipping owner is some kind of attempt at rationalisation. I come to the next part of the problem which the right hon. Gentleman has to tackle. He says that new ships must be built. I agree. He says that he will give loans to certain shipbuilders. Again I agree. It is highly desirable that, if we are to give State money, we should take a mortgage. In these cases, at any rate, we get something as a nation; we get a mortgage on the boats until the loan is paid back. To that extent, I have no criticism to offer. But the right hon. Gentleman goes further and says that he will also give grants. If I read these intricate proposals rightly, the man may get a grant and a loan.

Mr. Stanley: indicated assent.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman nods his head. The man may get a grant and a loan. Why? If it is a right principle that State money for building new boats should be returned to the nation in one case, why should another man not only get a loan that he has to return, but get, in addition, this grant without, as far as I can see, any vital obligation resting upon the recipient? In the case of the liner subsidy, a means test is imposed. Need has to be proved. I recognise that this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman attempted to allay some of the apprehensions that undoubtedly exist in various parts of the country as to the effect which the granting of this liner subsidy to some firms may have upon other firms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said, the words of the Bill, and even the right hon. Gentleman's statement, are still too vague and indefinite. I must say that I was alarmed when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was unable to declare firmly whether concerns like the Anchor Donaldson Line would come in for the same kind of assistance as their competitors in the Port of Liverpool are entitled to receive. I have here the re-

port of the Chamber of Shipping, dated 10th January, which was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman and upon which, presumably, he has based the provisions of this Bill. That report quotes a recommendation which they put forward away back in 1934, and says:
 When any section of the British Mercantile Marine can show that a temporary subsidy is necessary and will ensure its preservation for the time. His Majesty's Government should favourably consider the granting of such a subsidy, taking care not to prejudice other competing sections of British shipping thereby.
Further, they say:
 The commission, in addition to hearing the applicants, would take into consideration any reactions that the suggested aid might have on shipowners other than the applicants and would give any British shipowner apprehending such reactions, an opportunity to be heard.
What are the apprehensions? Here is the great port of Glasgow from which shipping services have been in operation on the North Atlantic for three-quarters of a century. Millions of money have been spent on that port by harbour authorities —houses have been built, streets laid out, public services of all kinds provided. Here are two great lines which have been operating for three-quarters of a century across the Atlantic. Their opponents in Liverpool, the Cunard Line, get subsidies already. In the port of Glasgow the Anchor Donaldson Line have no subsidy. Now comes this Bill under which, as far as I can see, the Anchor Donaldson people will not only be unable to get any assistance but may find that their competitors are still further advantaged. At the end of the day we may find the Anchor Donaldson Line going out altogether and a very serious position, indeed, arising in the northern part of this island.
We have seen this in other instances. We have seen calico printing and other industries rationalised out of Scotland. That has not paid the Treasury or the nation, because it has been necessary for the State to carry burdens of public assistance, Poor Law and unemployment benefit which outweighed anything gained by this alleged capitalist rationalisation. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us clearly and precisely whether under Clause 4, liner companies whose opponents get subsidies, may also get subsidies if they can prove that they are being hit, directly or indirectly, by foreign


subsidised competition, or as the result of any unavoidable circumstances. If it is necessary for the nation to preserve these shipping lines, it is no use having vague words and indeterminate statements and plausible explanations without any guarantees. Before this Bill goes on to the Statute Book we must have the most explicit assurances that in the attempts which the right hon. Gentleman is making to save our shipping industries, he is not going to knock out of the ring altogether old-established firms which are honestly doing their best, within the limits of the capitalist system. I am informed that a subsidised American shipping line has been sending a ship into the Clyde once a fortnight since the beginning of this year. It may be carrying whisky or taking out whisky and a few passengers—I do not know. But does the existence of that subsidised vessel, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, bring the Anchor Donaldson Line within the provisions of this Bill? I should be most obliged, and I know other hon. Members would too, for a clear and explicit statement from the President of the Board that in his view these Scottish firms are not being knocked out of the ring by the provisions of this Bill.
There is one part of this Measure that I should have rejoiced in, and that is the Minister's shipping reserve. He is buying £2,000,000 worth of ships. It may be that he is only going to get rubbish foisted on to him, and that it is only old, derelict vessels that the owners will part with, but still, in principle, this representative of an anti-Socialist Government declares that he is no longer going to allow private interests to sell vessels to Germany, Italy, Japan, or anyone else, either to be used on the high seas or to be broken up. He is going to step in to prevent that, and he is going to nationalise £2,000,000 worth of shipping. But immediately he comes to this decision what happens? The owners crowd round him and say, "You must not use these ships. You will be allowed to nationalise them, certainly, so long as you are paying a fair price for our old rubbish, but you must not use them. You can nationalise them, but you must stick them away at the Gairloch, you must take them out of the road. You will be allowed to train seamen on them, and we will let you

store some potatoes or wheat in them, but you must not use these vessels on the high seas for trading. Nationalise them, but under such conditions that they will deteriorate, and at any rate they must not be used in competition with us. Only on these conditions will we permit you to have a national reserve of ships."
Well, that is not our idea of nationalisation. It is the biggest jump, doubtless, which the President of the Board of Trade can make, but I trust that, inasmuch as we are at war now in everything except bloodshed, the nation's last financial reserves are being called up, the militiamen are being called up, the right hon. Gentleman will not deal so tenderly with the vested interests on the high seas as his predecessor did in 1914-18. If this nation is to fight for its life and for its food supply, there is only one way in which we can be guaranteed safety on the high seas, and that is when our shipping is run or controlled as a public service, when private profit takes a secondary place, and when a public utility concern is the minimum that we on this side can accept. While we recognise the difficulties that the President of the Board has to face now, we shall feel compelled to-night to go into the Division Lobby as a protest against some of the Clauses of this Bill.

10.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): While there has been a universal measure of agreement with the need of some assistance for the shipping and shipbuilding industries, there has been at the same time a certain volume of criticism of the methods to be employed, and hon. Members have raised a vast variety of points, to which I think it would be quite impossible for me to reply in full. I will reply to a great many of them, but many of them are Committee points, which I think we might better consider at that stage, and since they have now been made in speeches, it will afford us the opportunity of giving them further study before that point in the Bill is reached. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has raised various points in connection with the Anchor and Donaldson Atlantic Lines. May I repeat what my right hon. Friend has already made clear once to-day, that he very much appreciates the Scottish


case, the importance of these lines to Glasgow and to the economy of Scotland and the strong Scottish sentiment in regard to them? He has already dealt very fully with that matter. The right hon. Gentleman also put one or two specific points with which I will do my best to deal. The Liner Services Defence Committee would be entitled to look at the effect which any subsidy which might be given to one British line might have upon another British line. In the White Paper it states under the heading "Investigation by Committee" that the Liner-services Defence Committee would state their opinion on certain questions, and one of them is whether the grant of assistance would affect other British shipping, whether liner services or not. As to whether the effect of a foreign subsidy may be indirect, I think that is fully covered in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: Where?

Mr. Cross: In Clause 4, Sub-section (3),
where it says:
if in the opinion of the Board it is, or was, directly or indirectly assisted by the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: That applies only in cases where foreign vessels are subsidised or in some way assisted by their Government. It does not apply in any other case, and there may be cases where a line of trade is not affected by competition from a maritime country where ships are subsidised, but may be affected by competition of another character. It is precisely that point which concerns us.

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member is perfectly correct in what he said. If I mistook the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, clearly I have given the wrong answer, but what I said was correct so far as it went.

Mr. Johnston: Where is the word "indirectly" found?

Mr. Cross: In line 38. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of whether the Anchor and Donaldson Atlantic Lines were covered by this Subsection (3). That, of course, must be a question for the interpretation of the Liner Committee. It is a question of fact whether the Anchor and Donaldson Atlantic Lines are or are not being affected by foreign subsidised competition. I am not saying that it covers any-

thing more than that. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Clause is to give the Board of Trade power to help liner services which are suffering from foreign subsidised ships, and we are asking the House to give us the power to give financial assistance where there is some prospect of restoring a service which has either been knocked out or is seriously damaged. That means affording to a particular line a measure of temporary assistance which will enable the line to come to terms with its competitors, or, alternatively, if need be, to engage in a freight war and to win it. That must be a temporary assistance and not a permanent assistance, and as I understand the right hon. Gentleman what he has in mind is something which, if not permanent assistance, would necessarily have to go on for an indefinite time. Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I see that he shakes his head, but in any case permanent assistance is outside the purpose of this Clause.

Mr. Shinwell: This is a point of real substance and I gather that hon. Members opposite are equally concerned with us in this matter. Take the case of a liner company operating from a particular port in Scotland or in England or Wales. It is not affected by heavily subsidised foreign competition, but it is affected by the intensive competition from another port or another liner company. Would that British liner company so affected be entitled to apply to the liner assistance committee for assistance? That is the point.

Mr. Cross: There clearly must be an element of foreign competition, however indirect it may be, coming into the case before it is possible for a particular line to be able to obtain assistance under this provision.

Mr. Johnston: If that is the view of the President of the Board of Trade, would he be prepared later on himself to put down an Amendment to Clause 4 or to accept an Amendment if we put it down, making it clear that any competition, direct or indirect, with foreign shipping, in respect of which official subsidies for assistance were provided, came under the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Stanley: As long as it maintains an element of foreign subsidised competition it is perfectly plain, and I think it


is in the Bill, that it is indirect as well as direct. It does apply to competition coming from some port or ports elsewhere.

Mr. White: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at the Financial Resolution to see whether it is possible to make it plain there?

Mr. Cross: I hope that the answer which has been given satisfies hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been asked a number of other questions and perhaps I had better get on with them as rapidly as possible. I was asked why the definition of a tramp voyage did not include loading on the berth. I recognise that that is a method by which tramp shipowners employ their ships. It is not covered by the definition of tramp voyage. With all good will, we have been unable to draft a Clause to cover this class without entitling liner owners to claim subsidies where they were not making a tramp voyage. It has been necessary to drop this, and the tramp owners have, I understand, withdrawn their request for this provision. My hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson), on the question of liner defence, asked whether, for instance, when a foreign subsidised line was operating to Australia by way of Panama in competition with a British line operating by Suez, the British line would be covered by the definition in the Clause in regard to competing with foreign subsidised shipping. I am advised that it would be covered, although one line was going one way round the world and the other line was going the other way, and that the British line would, in fact, be in competition with that line and would be in a position to make a claim.
My hon. Friend asked a further question about the repayment of instalments on the loan after the first two years period of the loan. I call his attention to the fact that the arrangement is optional with the recipient of the loan, the main purpose of it being that in the period during which the ship is under construction and the owner is receiving no revenue, he may be assisted by not having to repay the loan. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) said a good deal on the subject of coasting vessels, regretted that they had not received a greater measure of assistance than they

do in the Bill and declared that such assistance as was available by way of loan would not be of great value. The reason why there is no operating subsidy in respect of coastal service is that the principal competition of the coastal service is with internal forms of transport such as roads, railways and canals. These coasting vessels are also excluded from the liner defence Clauses for the same reason, and in fact there is no foreign competition with liner services in British coastal trade. The shipbuilding grants are for the purpose of encouraging the building of overseas tramps and cargo liners, and I think there is no reason to fear that there will be any insufficiency of coastal vessels.
The total net tonnage of all types of ships in the coastal trade is considerably greater than it was some 10 years ago. The volume of coastal trade tends to increase. The total net tonnage of ships arriving and departing was 44,000,000 net tons in 1927. The figure had risen to 58,000,000 net tons in 1937, an increase of over 30 per cent. In 1938 the figure was somewhat lower, but greater than in 1913, which was the busiest of the pre-War years. Nevertheless some coasting vessels could derive some benefit under the subsidy scheme. A number of them engage in tramp voyages to near Continental countries and become eligible for subsidies.
At the same time I think no real case for financial assistance could be made which would be comparable to the case which has been made by other sections of the industry. Foreign vessels represent an insignificant proportion of vessels arriving and departing—under 2 per cent. —although I know that in some areas and some trades this foreign competition can be very severe. The industry, as is fully realised, is a very important one, and the Government is willing to do everything it can to assist it in other ways. Representatives of the industry have discussed their affairs with my right hon. Friend, who indicated his view that further progress lies in the direction of co-operation in the industry and coordination with other internal transport. There might, for example, be established minimum freight schemes, which could be applicable both to British and foreign vessels. Other action has been taken in order to further the employment of British coastal vessels. Government De-


partments require that British vessels should be used in coastwise carriage in orders in which they are concerned, and local authorities have been circularised by the Minister of Health. There has also been an approach to some other public bodies.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) raised the question of the tramp subsidy only becoming payable in—as he put it—July, 1940. He is, of course, fully aware that the subsidy actually becomes operative, from the point of view of being earned, from 1st January, 1940, but even so, my hon. Friend feels that he would prefer that the subsidy should become operative at a much earlier date if that were possible. The reason why this date was fixed by my right hon. Friend is that he felt that it would be in the best interests of the tramp shipping section of the industry that a definite date should be fixed. At this stage we cannot say when this Bill will become law, and when it will become operative. It may well be that it would be a few weeks before the 1st January, 1940, but on the other hand that might not be the case. It might not be possible to get the Bill through in time for that, and in that case tramp owners would be faced with uncertainty as to whether, during this autumn or the winter prior to 1st January, certain voyages at the end of the year would be covered by subsidy or not. Therefore, believing it to be in the best interests of the tramp section of the industry, this date, the 1st January, 1940, was fixed. I might add that I should have thought that a question of a few weeks over a period of five years could not be a matter of very great importance, since what is lost at this end must be gained at the other.
A number of hon. Members have spoken of the desirability of greater public control of the industry than is obtained under this Bill. The conditions in the Mercantile Marine are, however, extraordinarily diversified. The management is a highly specialised business in regard to particular trades and particular areas, and, consequently, any form of, at all events, centralised control would hardly lead to more efficient management of the industry. But I think we should also bear in mind that this is not a question of subsidising in the national interest an inefficient industry. If the industry had been

suffering from inefficiency, I imagine that this would have been a different Bill. I think, too, that some allowance should be made for the economic circumstances which have brought about a situation in which the industry has to come to the Government for assistance.
In the course of the last 10 years there has been only one good shipping year, namely, 1937, and in general the serious circumstances of the industry have had a weakening effect on its financial structure. Those adverse circumstances have not, of course, affected all sections of the industry at the same time or to the same extent, but it is nevertheless true that all kinds of shipping have had their periods of serious difficulty in the last 10 years, and that the same underlying factors are responsible for all their troubles. My right hon. Friend has already mentioned them. The quantum of world trade, although it. has been increasing in recent years, still persists below the 1929 level, while the tonnage of world shipping has not decreased, but, on the contrary, has increased. The tonnage under foreign flags has risen extraordinarily, due largely to the persistent building of Germany, Italy and Japan. The difficulties of British shipping cannot be claimed to be due to its own inefficiency. They are largely attributable to world economic conditions, coupled with the determination of a number of other countries to build fleets regardless of those world economic conditions. As regards reorganisation, we are faced with a situation in which the industry must be helped at once, and the question of the desirability of reorganisation, which would require prolonged study, is not one that could be dealt with prior to the giving of financial assistance to the industry. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well) instanced the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill, but the cotton industry themselves sought an enabling Bill after giving prolonged study to their own problems.

Mr. Shinwell: They did not have a subsidy.

Mr. Cross: I think the hon. Gentleman himself referred to the cotton industry as being one which has recently been made the subject of reorganisation. He instanced one or two others, and rather suggested that the same sort of thing should be done for the shipping industry.


I am only saying that in that instance at all events it arose from the industry itself, whereas, if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he was arguing that it would be desirable that the Government should present a Reorganisation Bill for the shipping industry.

Mr. Shinwell: That is what you did with coal.

Mr. Cross: It may be that the hon. Gentleman has a parallel there, but I feel that I had better not follow him on coal. Under the provisions of the White Paper, the Government lay an obligation on the industry to provide suggestions for its own reorganisation. It is the industry itself which should be best able to make suggestions as to the lines on which reorganisation, if it is desirable, could best proceed for the benefit of an industry which everyone has described as being highly individualistic. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) wanted a Government nominee on each of the Advisory Committees, but all the members of those committees are nominated by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Shinwell: Is that quite fair? The hon. Member knows the position on the tramp shipping committee.

Mr. Cross: There is a Government Member there, the rest being tramp shipowners nominated by the Board of Trade. The other committees are made up of experts and officials. The hon. Member referred to the appointment of Government nominees. I do not want to take an unfair advantage by taking him up on a single word that he used, but these are all Government nominees.

Mr. Shinwell: The Government may nominate persons connected with the industry. These are not Government nominees in the ordinary sense. On the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company the Government have two representatives. That is the kind of thing I mean.

Mr. Cross: My answer is not so far from the mark as the hon. Member would have us believe. He was dealing with the question of public control. These committees are only advisory. It seems to me reasonable to argue that this is an important factor in what the hon. Member described as public control. A point of

fundamental importance from the Government's point of view is that the tramp owners and the liner owners, as regards their sections, and the shipowners and shipbuilders, as regards the future ordering of tonnage, have undertaken to give consideration to the question of how the position can be improved upon. It would have been impracticable for the Government to insist, as a condition, on any particular measures of re-organisation, but the hon. Member will be aware from the White Paper that we expect to receive reports from time to time.

Colonel Ropner: If the Government have made it a condition of receiving subsidy that the shipowners shall cooperate and re-organise, the Government must have some idea of what they mean by those two words. The industry is entitled to have some indication of the way in which the Government are thinking. Also, my hon. Friend has not answered the point as to why the datum line is fixed as it is.

Mr. Cross: The Government have asked the industry to explore possibilities, and the industry have promised to do so. Presumably they have not given the undertaking to do something which they are not capable of doing. My hon. and gallant Friend understands better than I do what can be done. If his own imagination boggles at the prospect, it is not to say that others will be in the same position as that in which he finds himself.

Sir Percy Harris: The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) is a practical man in the industry and naturally challenges what is meant by the hon. Gentleman. Are they to be merely vague terms, or is there to be something in the Bill to enforce the terms, and if the terms are not carried out will the shipowners get the subsidy?

Mr. Cross: Some of the undertakings are conditions of receiving assistance. As to the particular point my hon. and gallant Friend was raising, namely, the question as to the reorganisation of the industry with an eye to the future, and being able to carry on without having financial assistance at some future date, I think there is in one sense a very fair sanction. As many hon. Members have pointed out, this is a highly individualist industry, and although certain hon. Members question whether they like receiving


a subsidy or not, they must be extremely conscious that the more they receive subsidies the less they will be able to be individualist. I feel that in that connection it is very much better to succeed in evolving plans which will free them of any possibility of Government control in the future. I do not think that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) could want a better sanction for shipowners than that which already exists.
The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) raised a large number of questions, and in particular said that there should be Labour representation on the tramp shipping subsidy committee. The main work of that committee is concerned with the examination of claims for subsidy, and those claims have to be examined in the light of tramp shipping practice. I cannot see that a labour representative would be necessary for this purpose. But there is the requirement that the committee must consider conditions affecting employment. The scheme, therefore, provides for reference to the National Maritime Board in cases of doubt in all instances where there may be some question as to the applicability of National Maritime Board agreements or their interpretation. I might add to what I said of the Government representative on that committee that he will be there as an impartial person and in order to see that such matters are in fact referred to the National Maritime Board.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that apply to Lascar labour.

Mr. Cross: I think that if the hon. Member connected that question with some point a little narrower than Lascar labour, I might find him a reply.

Mr. Shinwell: I will do so right away. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, but I put that point in the course of my speech, and now I understand that the hon. Member would rather that I repeat it. The point is whether it is to be one of the conditions of the subsidy to tramp shipping that, if Lascar labour is involved the rates paid should be comparable to the rates paid to British seamen and that there should be no undercutting by one shipowner as against another.

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member must know that it is already set out in the White Paper that there are provisions for

the payment of the usual rates to Lascars which are certainly not National Maritime Board rates. Where you have to employ two or three times the number of Lascars to white seamen, that would be a completely impossible position.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it fair that one ship should employ Lascar labour at much lower rates than British seamen receive under the National Maritime Board regulations. Lascars are employed at about £3 per month against £g a month paid to British seamen, and is it fair that the one shipowner should derive the same benefit from the tramp subsidy as the other shipowner.

Mr. Cross: I was trying to say, but the hon. Member intervened, that it is debatable whether the employment of Lascar crews is any cheaper than the employment of white crews. Many shipowners find that they cost at least as much. That is on account of the very much larger number of Lascars it is necessary to employ and to further incidental costs in regard to repatriation and so on. Further, Lascars are in the main employed in trades where they are far more easily available than white crews, for instance in the Eastern trades. There is a perfectly good provision in the White Paper to ensure that Lascar crews shall not be employed for the purpose of undercutting white crews, and it is a condition of assistance that Lascar crews shall not be used on routes where it has not been the custom to use them in the past.
A number of Members have argued that the Government should exercise a further measure of control in order to ensure that public money should not go out in the form of profits. The datum line is certainly not selected on a level to allow for profits. The object of the assistance is to maintain the shipping industry and to secure that ships and seamen should be adequate for national requirements, particularly in emergency. I think it is evident that the British shipping industry cannot on its own resources maintain its position, and the taxpayers' money must necessarily be added to the resources of the industry. That assistance is given for certain specific purposes. Shipping grants are given for the purpose of overcoming high costs and the difficulty of obtaining new capital. The tramp shipping subsidy is given to help to provide adequate depreciation for a period of five


years. The need of this assistance has necessarily been determined in relation to the average experience of the industry. To adopt an individual basis, as the hon. Member suggested, would unquestionably put a premium upon inefficiency. It would mean that the biggest amount of assistance would be given to the most inefficient company and the smallest amount to the most efficient. It is obvious that some concerns which will participate in the assistance will achieve better results than others, and that may very well be the consequence of greater efficiency and better judged enterprise. There is almost universal recognition of the need of some assistance to British shipping. There is general agreement as to the desirability of increasing the tonnage of cargo ships in order that we may be better prepared for emergency, and agreement that we need to keep our shipyards and our men working. The problems which have been presented by the shipping and shipbuilding industries are varied. I think the Bill presents the most practicable solution and is in itself an important contribution to the defence of the country.

11.15 p.m.

Miss Ward: I wish to raise one point which is of importance to the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, on whose behalf no one has said a word in the Debate. I therefore feel that I am justified in detaining the House for a few minutes. I should like to obtain from my right hon. Friend if I can, an assurance that a provision will be inserted in the Bill to make it incumbent on shipowners to have their repairs, where practicable, done by British ship repairers. If I understand the position aright, my right hon. Friend has obtained an assurance from the association of shipowners that they will carry out this policy, and I am certain the majority of shipowners will stand by this decision. I understand that they have already circularised the members of their Federation intimating that this is the policy they have agreed to adopt on behalf of the whole of the members of the Association.
I raise this point because I have in my possession evidence dated as late as 14th July, that a British shipping company has asked for quotations from Amsterdam and Rotterdam for carrying

out a considerable overhaul of a ship, and up to date they have not even asked a firm in this country to quote. I am certain the House would be in general agreement that if we are going to give subsidies to the shipping industry, the interests of the shipbuilders and ship repairers also should be safeguarded, and in so doing the interests of those employed in those industries should be safeguarded as well. I will not develop the point now, but I should like an assurance that in the Committee stage my right hon. Friend will include a provision in the Bill to carry this policy into effect. I understand that in France and in the United States, when ships are repaired outside those countries, except where circumstances demand that they should be so repaired, the owners have to pay a. duty on the money spent abroad. If such provision can be made by the French Government and the United States Government, I see no reason why it cannot be made by the British Government. It would be far better if the assurance which has been given to my right hon. Friend could be embodied in the Bill.

11.19 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: From the speeches that have been made, there is complete unity on the question that it is necessary that Government assistance should be given to the shipbuilding and shipping industry. The Bill itself is a recognition of the fact that the shipping industry is of vital national importance to our imperial security, and also a recognition that the state of the industry is such to-day that it cannot continue unless it receives Government support. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the support of the Socialist party. They will agree with what I have said so far, though they will probably disagree with the manner in which the support is given, and they also agree with the reasons why the industry has got into the deplorable condition it has, that in the main it is due to the unfair competition to which it has been subjected by both direct and indirect subsidies by foreign countries.
I rose to make this point. The disease from which British shipping is suffering is no new one. It has been well known in the industry itself for many years, and also well known to the Government. I agree that the Minister has said that they would leave it to the shipowners


to find a remedy, but as the shipowners could not agree the Government took no action. The result has been that the disease is now so deep-rooted that it will be extremely difficult to cure it. The tragedy to my mind is that action of this nature was not taken years ago when it would have been much easier to deal with the problem. It is well known that the shipping industry, particularly in the Far East between Japan and India and in the Baltic and in the Pacific, has been taken from our ships. We all realise that for imperial security we must have British shipping, and we cannot have these ships in time of war unless we have them in time of peace.
My point is this.[Interruption,] The President of the Board of Trade is responsible for British shipping, and also for a great many other industries as well. He would have to be a superman to devote sufficient time to look after the shipping industry effectively and at the same time to effectively deal with the other industries for which he is respon-

sible. I am not criticising my right hon. Friend. There is not a single Minister who could efficiently control and look after the shipping industry in addition to all the other multifarious duties he has to perform as President of the Board of Trade. I am convinced that there should be a Minister for Shipping, who would be able to devote his whole time to shipping problems. If we had had a Minister of Shipping years ago the industry would not be in the position it is today. I want to ask the Government not only to consider seriously the setting up of a Minister for Shipping, but to appoint such a Minister, whose sole duty it would be to look after the interests of British shipping, which is absolutely essential for the security of this country both in peace and in war.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 141.

Macquisten, F. A,
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Magnay, T.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Maitland, Sir Adam
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Storey, S.


Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Rankin, Sir R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Hon. J.(Moray and Nairn 


Markham, S. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Marsden, Commander A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Sutcliffe, H.


Medlioott, F.
Remer, J. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Riokards, G. W. (Skipton)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rots, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Moreing, A. C.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Rowlands, G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Muirhead, Lt.-Cot. A. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Schuster, Sir G. E.
White, H. Graham


Owen, Major G.
Selley, H. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Patrick, C. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Petherick, M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wragg. H.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Pilkington, R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
York, C.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Snadden, W, McN.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Porritt, R. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald



Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Procter, Major H. A.
Southby, Commander Sir A R. J.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.


Radford. E. A.
Spens. W. P.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdara)
Pools, C. C.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritey, B.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Isaacs, G. A.
Shinwell, E


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S, S.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sloan, A.


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Collindridge, F.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, B. W.


Cove, W G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Stokes, R. R.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davit, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J C
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Wilmot, John


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull O.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SHIPPING ASSISTANCE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question put,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the granting of financial assistance to the owners of ships registered in the United Kingdom and persons qualified to be such owners being persons whose principal place of business is in the United Kingdom; to provide for the creation of a reserve of merchant shipping; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

I. To provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a)of such sums as may be necessary for the payment of subsidies to persons qualified for assistance being owners of such ships as aforesaid in respect of tramp voyages or parts of tramp voyages carried out by such ships, being general trading vessels in any of the years nineteen hundred and forty to nineteen hundred and forty-four inclusive; and of any expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Board of Trade in connection therewith, so however that the sums and expenses so paid in respect of any year shall not exceed two and three-quarter million pounds;
(b)of such sums as may be necessary for the payment of ship-building grants to persons qualified for assistance in respect of the cost of building general trading vessels to their orders under contracts made after the 28th day of March, 1939, for the building of such vessels in the United Kingdom, so however that such sums shall not in the aggregate exceed two and a half million pounds and no sum shall be paid by way of ship-building grant after the 31st day of May, 39,15;
(c)of such sums as may be necessary for the giving of financial assistance to persons qualified for assistance to enable them to operate liner services with such ships as

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[11.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Butcher, H. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cross, R. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cartland, J. R. H.
Crossley, A. C.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cary, R. A.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Davidson, Viscountess


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
De Chair, S. S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Assheton, R.
Christie, J. A.
Doland, G. F.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. E. Grinstead)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Duggan, H. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Colman, N. C. D.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Dunglass, Lord


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Cooke, J.D.(Hammersmith, S.)
Eastwood, J. F.


Broeklebank, Sir Edmund
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Eckersley, P. T.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Craven-Ellis, W
Edge, Sir W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. Leith)
Critchley, A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Brown, Brig.-Gon. H. C. (Newbury)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Ellis, Sir G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Elliston, Capt. G. S.

aforesaid in competition with foreign shipping in receipt of official subsidies or assistance; and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with such financial assistance, so however that the sums and expenses so paid and the liabilities entered into by the Board in respect of. any assistance so given shall not in the aggregate exceed ten million pounds;

(d) of such sums as may be necessary for the payment of any expenditure incurred in connection with the purchase and, where necessary, the putting into repair of vessels purchased for the purpose of creating a reserve of merchant ships, not exceeding in the aggregate two million pounds; and of any sums necessary to defray the cost of. maintaining any vessel forming part of that reserve.

II. To provide for the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by way of interest on or repayment of any loans made under sub-paragraph (c) of the last foregoing paragraph of this Resolution or by way of reimbursement in respect of any guarantee or indemnity given under that sub-paragraph.

III. To provide for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for the payment of ship-building loans to persons qualified for financial assistance in respect of the cost of building general trading vessels to their orders under contracts made after the 28th day of March. 1939, for the building of such vessels in Great Britain, and to authorise the raising of money and' the creation and issue of securities under the War Loan Act, 1919, for the purpose of providing for the issue of such sums, so however that such sums shall not in the aggregate exceed ten million pounds, and no such loan shall be made in respect of any vessel of which the keel was not laid before the expiration of two years from the commencement of the said Act of the present Session.

For the purposes of this Resolution the expression 'person qualified for assistance ' means any person qualified under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to own a British ship who has his principal place of business: within the United Kingdom."—(King's recommendation signified)—[Mr. Stanley]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 135.

Emery, J. F.
Lees-Jones, J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Remer, J. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lewis, O.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Evan, D. O. (Cardigan)
Liddall, W. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Fleming, E. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Rowlands, G.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. D. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Loftus. P. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Salmon, Sir I.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Gledhill, G.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Goldie, N. B.
MoCorquodale, M. S.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Selley, H. R.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
McKie, J. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Maonamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Magnay, T.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Maitland, Sir Adam
Snadden, W. McN.


Hambro, A, V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Hannah, I. C.
Markham, S. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Harbord, Sir A.
Marsden, Commander A.
Spens. W. P.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Medlioott, F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Storey, S.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mowing, A. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hepworth, J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Holdstworth, H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hunter, T.
Patrick, C. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Perkins. W. R. D.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Petherick, M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Pilkington, R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Jennings, R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Porritt, R. W.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Keeling, E. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Kellett, Major E. O.
Radford, E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wright, Wins-Commander J. A. C.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
York, C.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Rankin, Sir R.



Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Day, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Dobbie, W.
Hollins, A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hopkin, D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Ede, J. C.
Isaacs, G. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jagger, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Barnes. A.J
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath


Barr, J
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
John, W.


Batey, J.
Frankel, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Gallacher, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Bevan, A.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Kirkwood, D.


Broad, F. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lathan, G.


Buchanan, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lawson, J. J.


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leach, W.


Cape, T.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lee, F.


Chater, D.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Leonard, W


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)
Logan, D. G.


Cocks, F. S.
Groves, T. E.
Lunn, W.


Collindridge, F.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdara)
McEntee, V. La T.


Daggar, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.


Dalton, H.
Hayday, A.
MacLaren, A.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Maclean, N.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Marshall, F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Mathers, G.

Maxton, J.
Riley, B.
Tinker, J. J.


Messer, F.
Ritson, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Milner, Major J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Viant, S. P.


Montague, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Walkden, A. G.


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Shinwell, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Silverman, S. S.
Watson, W. McL-


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simpson, F, B.
Welsh, J. C.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Sloan, A.
Westwood, J.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Paling, w.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Parker, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Pearson, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilmot, John


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen, C.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Poole, C. C.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-la-Sp'ng)
Woods, C. S. (Finsbury)


Prim, M. P.
Stokes, R. R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Pritt, D. N.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Richards R. (Wrexham)
Thurtle, E.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [13M July].

Resolution reported:

House of Commons Members Fund.
 That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the making, in certain cases, of grants to, and to the widows of, persons who have been members of the House of Commons, the salary or pension of a member from which deductions are to be made under the said Act shall not be treated for any of the purposes of the Income Tax Acts as reduced by reason of the provisions of the said Act or of deductions made pursuant thereto, and a member shall not be entitled to any allowance, deduction or relief, under any provision of the Income Tax Acts by reason of such deductions and his income shall not be regarded as thereby diminished.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS FUND BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Clause I.—(The House of Commons Members Fund.)

11.48 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "widows," to insert "and to the children."
I propose to try to explain the purpose of this Amendment in as few words as possible, in order that the subsequent Amendments may have adequate discussion and that we may terminate the proceedings in a short time. If hon. Members will refer to the similar Amendment to the First Schedule, they will see that it explains this Amendment.
Our proposed Amendment to the Schedule is, in page 5, line 23, at the end, to insert:
 Provided that the trustees may, in any case where there is no widow to whom a grant would have been payable under this Schedule, make instead a grant for the benefit of any children of the deceased member.
If a Member of this House has at the present time no income but his £600 a year, he may, with great difficulty, be saving perhaps £20 a year to make provision for his dependants. Under the Bill he will have to pay £12 a year into the Members Fund and it is reasonable to suppose that he will be likely in the future to be able to save only £8 a year instead of £20. If that Member happens to die and leaves no widow but possibly an infant daughter for whom he would wish to make provision, he will, as a result of this Bill, be able to save only £8 a year instead of £20, and, as far as I can see, his daughter would get no benefit whatever from the fund to which he has had to contribute. It cannot be the intention of the House that a Member who has no other resources outside his £600 a year should have to contribute towards a Members' Fund which in certain circumstances would be of no benefit whatever to his dependants when he dies. That is the case at present, and it is the reason for the Amendment. I did not vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I did not regard it as a particularly well discussed Bill. I regard it as a purely domestic matter for Members of the House, and if they desire to adopt it I should wish to make some small contribution towards making it a better Measure.

11.52 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): It seems to me that there is


a good deal of force in my hon. Friend's suggestion, and, from such inquiries as I have been able to make in different parts of the House, I think it represents a feeling that is widely shared. While it would be a mistake to attempt to include in this scheme, which is a modest scheme as regards the amount involved, large classes of persons, I have in mind the case which I think is in my hon. Friend's mind, of orphan children. You might have the case of a Member's widow who has small children as well as herself to look after, and, while the Bill as it stands would make it possible for the trustees to make a limited grant to the widow, yet if she died and the infant children became orphans, they would at once cease to have any possibility of support from the fund. Or the mother of the children might die before the Member who was her husband, and he might be left with young children. If we are trying to devise a plan for the granting of a sum where the Member leaves a widow, it would, I think, be entirely consonant with our general feeling to try to include the case where, although he does not leave a widow, he leaves small children.
Therefore, without discussing the details—there are certain drafting points to be considered—if I might offer to the House advice on this matter, in which we are all co-operating and in which there is no question of pressure on anyone, I think it would be right that we should insert, after the word "widows" in line 7, the words "or orphan children." I should not contemplate a grant both to the widow and to the children at the same time; that would be too heavy a drain on the funds with which at any rate the scheme would be started; but I think it would be right to insert these words, so that the orphan children would occupy the same position as the mother would if she were alive. No doubt other Members may desire to indicate whether they take that view, but if it is shared in different quarters of the House, and if my hon. Friend is prepared to move the words in this form, I would advise that they should be inserted, leaving it to the Report stage for the draughtsman to provide us with whatever are the necessary adjustments in the Schedule.

Mr. Lees-Smith: This is a constructive suggestion. The hon. Member has pointed

out a genuine gap in the Bill, and the point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made is acceptable to myself and my hon. Friends.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: There ought to be some age limit for the children.

Sir J. Simon: I will bear that in mind.

11.55 P.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I am glad that this Amendment has been brought forward. Obviously, whether one likes the Bill or not, now that we have it one wants to make it the best Bill one can. I hope that we shall be able to make it possible that the children will not lose because it happens that their mother is not alive when a Member of this House dies.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I do not want to oppose any reasonable Amendment, but the Committee ought to realise exactly what it is doing. The amount of money to be raised by the Fund is £7,000 and it permits 18 awards, on the average, to ex-Members and their widows. I am doubtful whether widows should be provided for in this way at all. The amount at the disposal of the Fund is limited. It envisages18 Members who can receive these pensions, but by the inclusion of the widows, and, still more, of the children, it may happen that the number of widows who may be indigent will be above the number of 18. The widows may receive these pensions to the exclusion actually of the ex-Members of Parliament.

Mr. Radford: How is the figure 18 arrived at?

Mr. Petherick: My hon. Friend ought to cross-examine Members of the Committee who were responsible for putting the suggestion forward. There are 18 pensions available, but it is a little difficult to find out how that number is arrived at. The pensions ought to be paid to ex-Members of the House first.

11.58 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I support the Amendment to include orphan children. I think it is the wish of the House to make provision for these children in the event of their being left without


the mothers' support. There is considerable force in the argument, but the difficulty is that the Fund is limited in amount. It may well be that the pensions given to ex-Members will have to go on to their widows and then to their orphaned children. In that way the scope of the Fund will be extended to such an extent that we shall be unable to pay pensions to those whom we desire in the first instance to help, those Members who fall on evil times. This is a point that the Committee might well keep in mind.

12 m.

Major Sir Philip Colfox: I agree that orphaned children ought to be entitled to receive a pension in certain circumstances, but I cannot follow that this assistance should be limited to orphans. A widow who has a child dependent upon her is in a much worse position than a childless widow, and while I welcome the suggestion to pension orphan children, I should like all children of deceased Members to been titled to consideration. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend, it is necessary to have an age limit beyond which children could not expect to be pensioned. It seems to me that the limit must vary according to the sort of education the child is undertaking, and the kind of employment for which the child is destined. Some children would start to earn their living much earlier than others. This must be carefully considered on the Report Stage. I rose really to ask whether it would not be better, wiser and more humane to make it possible for all children of deceased Members to have a chance of consideration by the trustees.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Radford: In view of the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) that 18 beneficiaries appear to be contemplated as a maximum, would one of the promoters of the Bill explain how that figure was arrived at. If the maximum amount that can be paid in any case is £150 there must be sufficient money available for at least 50 beneficiaries, and as, in many cases, the amount would be less than £150 it should be possible to have more than 50.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Crossley: One or two hon. Members have talked about the inadequacy of the fund to provide both for retired Members and the orphan children of deceased Members.

Mr. Magnay: On a point of Order. Is it not misleading to say that there is not enough money in the fund to provide for retired Members and orphans?

The Chairman: I think we might get on with the discussion.

Mr. Crossley: There is not enough to provide both for retired Members and for children of Members who have died. Later on the Order Paper I have an Amendment which would very considerably augment the Fund, and, therefore, I cannot help feeling that there is an argument in favour of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery).

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: I think that the Debate on the Amendment has already gone far enough to show that it is a matter which requires very careful consideration between now and the Report Stage. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of his great legal knowledge, whether it is possible to accept the suggestion which has been made by my hon. Friend below the Gangway that payments should be made to children, with an age limit? Where it is possible for such moneys to be paid to minors, arrangements will have to be made by which money is paid to guardians of these children, and if hon. Members are not very careful these pensions will go into the pockets of solicitors. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I hope he will not feel that this is by any means a flippant suggestion—that machinery may be found for the Fund to be administered by public trustee, if pensions are to be paid to children who are minors. But I must say, as a loyal supporter of the Government, that I believe that this Measure has been ill-considered.

12.7 a.m.

Sir I. Albery: I should like, if the Committee will allow me, to move the Amendment in the manner suggested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the


Exchequer, and I very much hope that the Committee will not insist upon putting on any restriction as regards age limit or anything of the kind. The whole matter is in the discretion of the trustees, and I feel that it would be far better to leave it at that.

The Chairman: I suggest to the Committee that the Amendment on the Order Paper had better be withdrawn and that the hon. Member should then move the Amendment in the revised form, so as to read "or to the orphan children."

Mr. Crossley: Ought not that Amendment to be moved on the Report stage?

12.8. a.m.

Sir J. Simon: It will certainly be necessary on the Report stage to include in the Schedule one or two more detailed provisions to indicate one way or the other whether there is any limit of age, whether it is 16 or whatever it may be. There are one or two other things which must be adjusted, and it is, I think, desirable that we should, if that is the view of the Committee, put them into the Bill now, and I will explain why. If we do not make any Amendment of the Bill at all there will not be any Report stage, and if we make an Amendment by inserting "or to the orphan children," that will not finally commit us or the House but will make the basis upon which we can consider the matter.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Crossley: Are there likely to be many Amendments to this Bill? Why should we now put into the Bill words which are not satisfactory in themselves? Why should not we leave this matter, as is the invariable practice of the Government in any ordinary Bill, until the Report stage? The Amendment should be withdrawn, and inserted in proper words and passed by the House on the Report stage.

Mr. Clement Davies: I think there has been some misunderstanding. The words originally proposed were right for the purpose of enabling grants to be made to persons, and the widows of persons, who have been members of the House of Commons. I should have thought "and to children" would be the right words in Sub-section (1) and the words

proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come in Sub-section (2), where the actual payment is to be made.

Sir Richard Meller: This proposal largely extends the scope and intention of the scheme. There may be one, two, three, four or five children from the age of one to 16, and that means extending the period to an enormous extent.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: In order to help the Government out of their difficult, may I move to report Progress?

Sir I. Albery: In order to comply with the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 17, after "widows" insert, "and the children."—Sir I. [Albery.]

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "to" to "the" in page 2, line 1.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee to serve to shorten the proceedings if we consider the Amendment together with that which stands in my name to the First Schedule. These Amendments cover the taking out from that Schedule of paragraphs 1, 2 and 5. You will see, Sir Dennis, that the words which are sought to be omitted from Subsection (2) of the Clause are subject to those at the beginning of the Sub-section, and which are:
Subject to the provisions of the first Schedule to this Act.
Further, I would ask that we should be entitled to discuss the matter of the omission of the words of Sub-section (2) along with the proposed omission of the paragraphs of the First Schedule.

The Chairman: I do not see any object in the hon. and learned Members suggestion. If the Amendment is accepted it will require a consequential Amendment of the Schedule.

Mr. Erskine Hill: The terms of the words which are sought to be omitted are all subject to the provisions of the First Schedule. I submit that they are very necessary for the understanding of the words that are sought to be omitted.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member may refer to the First Schedule in so far as it is necessary to explain the Amendment which is on the Order Paper now, and which I have called him to move. There is no reason to discuss She: Amendment and the Schedule.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I am obliged, Sir Dennis, because that is what I want to do in order to make the meaning of the Amendment clear. I should like to tell the Committee the object of the Amendment; it is to widen the powers given to the Trustees and not to make a hard-and-fast rule which would not enable them to do justice to a case of hardship. The Fund is not static. There are powers for the Fund to be increased by private gift, or otherwise, and the Fund may well be, ere long, in the position that would make it unfair to limit the benefits of it, as is done by the Clause, and as is explained in the First Schedule. The Clause imposes a serious means test of a particular sort, because it is absolute. There is no relief from it. The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said that the Bill was being advanced to relieve hardship, but if you want to do that you have to look not only at a man's assets but at his liabilities.

Mr. J. J, Davidson: Tell that to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell the unemployed.

Mr. Erskine Hill: If you cannot look at the liabilities you cannot do justice to the Member. I am bound to say that on the Second Reading of the Bill I waited with interest to have this point brought forward by hon. Members opposite, because I understood that they had distinct views against the imposition of any test such as this. I think a means test is sometimes necessary, but where it is, as in the case of the unemployment assistance schemes, something ought to be done to find out what the liabilities are, to ease the test. The test in the present case will operate with the greatest hardship. In a particular case where the Fund is able to pay and the Trustees are anxious to give, you may find that the terms of the Bill will prevent them. [Interruption.]
If hon. Members opposite will permit me, I will give a case of serious hardship; this is not an example based on conjecture or guess, but an example of a Member of this House who not only

gave me permission to mention the facts but actually asked me to do so. The facts of the hardship in this case are: The hon. Member made a settlement on his wife, from whom he was separated some years ago. He subsequently lost, as any hon. Member may do, the rest of his means. If he ceases to be a Member of the House, and applies to the Trustees of the Fund, he will have to say how much his income is, and he will have to give, as part of his income, the amount which he is liable to pay his wife every year. That amount will be so much that it means that he will get no payment out of this Fund at all. It is all wrong that the Trustees should not have discretion to say, in a case like that: "We have the Fund, and we are going to use it to help this Member."
Hon. Members opposite also think of the cases where a widow is left with children and where the maximum sum of £75 is obviously quite inadequate to meet her requirements. I think that the trustees will require to exercise their discretion by making certain rules, but as they operate the fund, so their experience will grow, and it will be found that they can be trusted to work the fund for the proper benefit of the Members of the House. I want to test the question on the supposition that the matter is left to the trustees. What will they have to do? They will have to decide how much can be paid out of the fund, because, as the Committee will remember, they will have to have regard to the resources and commitments of the fund. They will then have to decide what are the hard cases, and, if they have complete discretion, when they have found out the number of applicants at any given time, they will then have to make the rules meet the cases, so that the fund can be made as useful as possible. On the Second Reading of the Bill there was a free vote, and I am bound to say that I had expected that more than one hon. Member would raise this point. I respect the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) for having had the courage to raise the point. The hon. Member said, in the clearest possible terms, what he thought about the question. I do not think I can do better than repeat his words. He said that the Bill
 establishes for ever the miserable and hateful means test.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, T939; col, 2566; Vol. 349]


I hope that hon. Members opposite, when they come to vote on this Amendment, will remember that the Bill could be worked so as to enable the trustees, with much wider discretion, to do much more good. I ask the Committee to consider the Amendment, not as a frivolous Amendment—for I assure hon. Members that it is not so intended—but as an Amendment to make the Bill more effective in the amount of good it can do.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I wish to say only a few words in support of this Amendment, the effect of which is to abolish the means test and trust the trustees. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, in winding up the Debate on that occasion, and also when speaking on the Private Member's Motion last February, pointed to the suggestion that this Bill would be in accord with the dignity of the House. It is following that suggestion that I think we might regard the idea of trusting our fellow Members who are going to be trustees as being in accord with the dignity of the House. From a broader point of view, I should like to say something with regard to this Amendment and also with regard to other Amendments, to which I shall not refer specifically, standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. The same inspiration underlies all of them, and we want, if possible, to make it accord with the sense of justice of Members and also with their just pride.

12.31 a.m.

Sir A. Southby: I rise to oppose the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. Hard cases make bad law. My views about this Bill are well known. I cannot believe that it can be right, whatever one's views about the means test may be, to take the means test out in a case which deals with Members of this House individually and at the same time retain it when public assistance is given, in those cases where, in my opinion quite rightly, some test of means has to be taken before public money is paid out. It must be the duty of trustees, whether they administer public funds or a fund such as this, which is a domestic affair of the House of Commons, to ascertain before payments are made whether the circumstances of

the beneficiary do or do not entitle him to assistance. This is neither the time nor the place to argue whether a means test is good or bad. We might try to keep acrimony on that subject out of the Debate, but I believe that the sense of hon. Members opposite would be that in this particular case at any rate it is essential that there should be some inquiry into the means of the recipient or the applicant for the benefit. My hon. Friend, with whom I disagree, made a case for an individual example where hardship would result. I suggest that that case could be met by altering the Schedule to the Bill to give discretionary powers to the trustees to take into consideration, when investigating the case of an applicant, all the circumstances of the case. I think that that is the appropriate way out of it. But to remove the question of a means test from this, is, in my opinion, wrong, and I, personally, shall oppose it because I cannot find it in my conscience to remove the means test from something which has to do with Members of this House and at the same time retain it, as I think it should be retained, in other cases outside, where the public are concerned.

12.34 a.m

Mr. Raikes: It is a great pain to me to differ from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), but I feel that the question of conscience is on the side of those who have moved this Amendment. In certain circumstances a means test must exist, and where you are dealing with public funds, you have to consider certain matters, but the Prime Minister told us on the Second Reading of this Measure that public funds are in no way affected. I naturally bow to the wisdom of the Prime Minister and his colleagues on that point. If public funds are not being affected, then you have a private scheme, a scheme of compulsory benevolence which is nevertheless private, and which, if hon. Members press certain Amendments, which I hope they will, will have large funds. It seems to me unnecessary to be too pernickety in looking into the household resources of men who nave served the State for years and who, in their old age, call upon Parliament to give them some fair return for their labours in the past. If you have the means test insisted upon, it can be said, not only in this country but outside, that an ex-Member of Parlia-


ment is worth only £3 a week as a maximum for the rest of his life. I can see that gibe running throughout Europe. Why should it? The Fund will have a reasonable amount of money in it. You have trustees who presumably are reasonable men; there are some reasonable men in this House. I suppose we shall endeavour to find these trustees among those reasonable men, and they will deal with every single case rather according to the funds that they possess in this Fund than in any other way.
No ex-Member of Parliament is going to appeal, in the rather undignified way which this Measure suggests, to unknown trustees to get money for himself or his family, nor, if he is dead, is his widow going to appeal for it unless there is real financial hardship. If, which is very unlikely, there should be a flagrant case of fraud, the reasonable trustees would be able to deal with it, but in the ordinary case why not give the opportunity to the trustees to give the amount which the fund makes possible in any particular year for those who require it? If you do that, you get away from the gibe that any hon. Member is worth only £3 a week. You have not got to deal with public funds, and you also, if this Amendment is passed, give the unusual spectacle of hon. Members opposite and on this side joining together in voting against a means test in cases where a means test is totally unnecessary. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

12.38 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps I may take this opportunity of informing the House how this matter has struck me. I am not sure that everybody appreciates just what this proposal really is. A number of arguments have been used which, I think are really outside the proposal. The Bill provides that trustees, in discharging their duty, should have regard to the financial circumstances of the persons to whom payments are made. The proposal of my hon. Friend is that we should exclude those words. I ask myself, Is it really intended that the trustees should not have regard to the financial circumstances of those persons to whom payments are made? Most of the hon. Gentlemen who have made speeches in support of the Amendment assure us that they think the trustees should do so. I should have thought that was very good sense, and if that is so, what would

be the objection to the trustees having regard to the financial circumstances of the persons to whom payments are made? That is all that we are discussing on this Amendment. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) observed that he considered that this was a case where we should trust the trustees. No doubt we should trust them, but let us also not make their task too difficult. It really is necessary to put some regulations in this Bill. You cannot simply say to Members of this House, "You shall be trustees. Here is a lot of money. Now deal with it as you think fit." It is only due to the trustees that we should lay down reasonable lines of guidance, and I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

12.39 a.m

Mr. Markham: I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just spoken, because he went over the first part of the short speech that I intended to make. But I think that the Chancellor might have gone a little further and told us what this Amendment would do in certain circumstances. It would certainly render every Member of this House eligible for a pension, but it would give the trustees no power to inquire as to whether a Member was in need or otherwise. This is the operative part of the scheme which gives the trustees power to inquire into financial circumstances. If you take these words out, you circumscribe the powers of the trustees to make inquiries. If you do that, you might just as well go the whole hog and come out on the side of colossal pensions, which apparently we should have, according to some of the speeches which have been made.

12.41 a.m.

Captain Heilgers: I think that on this particular occasion my hon. Friends are ill-advised. It seems that the only justification is the fact that there are necessitous cases and that if you take this particular form of words out of the Bill, you take away the whole core of the Bill. I think you could, if these words were removed, allow any trustees to make payments to anyone they liked, and I am sure that is not what the Committee intends. We may think to-day that the trustees who would be appointed would be men of judgment and discretion, but we are also dealing with the future.


Therefore when we are dealing with trustees whom we do not know, we should provide for dealing with necessitous cases and not leave words out which might allow them to deal with friends or people with whom they were on friendly relations.

12.43 a.m.

Lieut-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I feel myself surprised and somewhat grieved, yet I feel bound to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) said that as there were no public funds concerned, therefore it was not necessary to have trustees in strict supervision. Does anyone think there will not be public funds in five or 10 years' time? We all know that hard cases will come up, that the Bill will be extended, and that there will be a large charge on public funds. Of course there will be. I also feel strongly that it is not possible for us to support a means test for the unemployed and refuse a means test on ourselves in a matter of this kind.

12.44 a.m

Mr. Cartland: I am against the Amendment, but I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say a word about the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby). At the moment no discretion is granted to the trustees at all to meet the case put up by the hon. and gallant Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill). The trustees are tied down by actual financial limits in the Schedule. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could suggest some sort of provision being made to meet hard cases? It should be made, although I am against the Amendment, for reasons which were given by the Chancellor.

Sir J. Simon: I think my hon. Friend will see that that arises on the Schedule. I should have thought that it would be rather difficult to go further in the way of discretion than it does.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain whether the words taken from Sub-section (2)—" subject to the provisions of the First Schedule "—apply to the whole Clause? It seems that the words which it is sought to omit depend on these first words and that, therefore, one must take into consideration the

terms of the First Schedule in considering them.

Sir J. Simon: Certainly, but if there is any question of modifying the First Schedule, the time to do it would be when we have the First Schedule to discuss.

Sir John Mellon: As one who still feels doubt as to the merits of the Amendment, I want to ask whether we are not to have some assistance from the Opposition. I do feel that it is undesirable only to have the views of experts on one side of the Committee.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Petherick: I must say that I hope the Committee will not pass the Amendment. I have great respect for my hon. Friends, but I think that in the present Amendment they are on rather a bad wicket. I cannot see how it is possibly logical to defend a means test for a public service outside the House and to oppose it in these circumstances. I admit that one can depend too much on logic, as she may be an extremely indifferent wife although frequently an excellent mistress. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) said that he hoped that no acrimony would be introduced, and it would not be my intention to endeavour to introduce such an undesirable element. I agreed with him when he said that it is very difficult for the Committee to come to a really satisfactory and carefully considered conclusion when all the advice given has come from one side. We have had many acrimonious debates in the past on the means test, and hon. Members opposite have given us the benefit of their most careful advice on that subject. It is very difficult for some of us to make up our minds on the merits without their help. I know their numbers are rather small, because we were deprived of the presence of some of them owing to a rapid exodus a few minutes ago, but I see some experts on this subject over there. I think it most difficult for Members such as myself who are groping to try and arrive at the truth to do so without having the benefit of some advice to which we feel as a Committee we should have access. Therefore I hope, seriously, that we may have some help from hon. Members opposite, particularly Members on the Opposition Front Bench, who, we know, are real experts on this matter.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: I want to make a suggestion to the Committee which I think would expedite business and dispose of the Amendment. There may be Members, such as myself, in some difficulty. I appeal to the movers of the Amendment to get me out of the difficulty by withdrawing the Amendment and allowing the matter to be rediscussed when we reach the Schedule. I make that suggestion for the reason that at this stage of the Bill I am in this difficulty about voting. Firstly, the Government have just made what appears to be an extremely surprising and generous concession by including the children of ex-Members. I do not know whether the Fund is going to be strengthened by the acceptance of a later Amendment—1 hope it is—but I am in a difficulty as to how to vote on this Amendment. If the hon. Member could see fit to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, so that we may have the matter redebated when we reach the Schedule, I think it would help matters.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Eastwood: There has been one point raised here, namely, the question of the means test. So far as that is concerned, I, personally, and hon. Friends of mine, will be consistent over this. We have continuously been in favour of a means test when it has had to do with the administration of public money for other persons, and surely we must be consistent when it has to do with the payment of money to ourselves, because any one of us here may in time to come be recipients of money from this Fund. For that reason I very much regret that this Amendment has been moved. There is another point in regard to it. If it is carried, the extent of the payments that the trustees may have to make would be very much enlarged. When the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, from all over the House the question was brought forward as to whether this Fund would be sufficient to meet the cases which will arise under this Bill. We have already dealt with two Amendments, and I do hope the Committee will realize the effect of these two Amendments. Under these Amendments we have added "children" to "widows." There is no question of its being "widows or children." The Committee has done this in spite of the

fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the word "children" should be altered to "orphans." If the word "orphans" had been put in the Bill, then the expenditure of money would have been to some extent limited, but, unanimously, the Committee ignored the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we should have the word "orphans" put in; unanimously, the Committee added the word "children" to the word "widow," and now under this Amendment the direction to the trustees is taken away so that further sums may be required under this Bill. For these reasons I very much hope that this Amendment will be rejected.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. Bracken: I am taking no side in this matter; I wish to speak as an elder statesman. I feel very strongly that the Committee should get further and better guidance, more particularly from the Opposition parties. I also think that some other Member of the Government should give the Committee guidance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an admirable speech, but he is now a refugee in the Tory party, and a most acceptable refugee from the point of view of the Government. But I think we ought to have the advantage of the opinion of the Chief Whip, who has been seen consorting with the Opposition Whips from time to time. He has, in fact, been the leader of the House for many years, and that he should choose on this occasion to be silent seems a rather curious matter. I feel very strongly about this question of guidance, because I have taken no sides in this matter. I am perfectly prepared to support the side which puts forward the best possible arguments, but really it is absurb that a very large section of the Committee should remain in dumb, mute, and inglorious silence. The hon. gentlemen who sit on the Socialist benches have a perfect right to speak in this matter, and I think they could put forward an extremely good case from their point of view, but surely it would be misrepresented in the country if they remained silent, and they will certainly misrepresent us for our vocal efforts. I feel that it is quite impossible to proceed tonight if we have this great, solid, mute block of hon. Members sitting mute and dumb in the House, willing to benefit from this Amendment and yet afraid even to cheer


the proposition that you are putting forward that there should be no adequate means test. So I do very much appeal to the Patronage Secretary, whom we rarely have an opportunity of hearing in this House. I ask him, speaking for the Tory party, to give us a little guidance in this matter. I have followed him through the lobbies, with intermissions, for years, and I look forward to his giving us a little guidance. If he will get up and guide us clearly in this matter, I, for one, will hesitate very long before I fail to give him support.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) favoured us in the Second Reading debate with a very interesting speech on the Bill. He is very interested in it and is exceedingly anxious to speak, but he seems shy tonight. He did get up once, but he did not catch the eye of the Chair. I hope he will have the courage to stand straight up and disregard anything that the Patronage Secretary may say to him.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The reason I did not take part in the debate was that I am anxious not in any way to extend the time of the debate more than is essential. If my view is asked for on this particular Amendment, I will say that I think this is not a perfect Bill, but it is the first Bill of its kind that has been introduced, and I think it is essential that it should be a practical success when it is administered. I think this Amendment would make it more difficult for the trustees to make it a practical success, and for that reason I cannot support it.

Mr. Erskine Hill: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about the proper time for deciding on this being on the First Schedule, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

12.59 a.m

Mr. Butcher: We have had an expression of view from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has had considerable experience in this House, and the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), representing the Opposition front Bench, has also given expression to his opinion, but I do feel that this Committee

is entitled to some guidance from the back benches. Speaking as a younger Member of the House, I hope that men of my age will all let us have their help in this very difficult matter.

1. a.m.

Mr. Magnay: Is it not about time to stop this fooling? This is a serious Bill, and I am amazed at the lack of decorum shown by hon. Members of this House who ought to know better. It may be very good tactics; it may be the rule at Eton or Harrow for the rich, orthodox— (Hon. Members: "Order").— I am quite in order. It might be good tactics.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: On a point of Order. Is it right for an hon. Member to challenge the Chair?

The Chairman: If an hon. Member challenges the Chair, the hon. and gallant Member may leave that matter to me.

Mr. Magnay: But I suggest we are making complete fools of ourselves by that lack of—I was going to say good manners—but I will say, lack of deportment on a serious matter. We know of hon. Members of this House in the past who almost in a moment, perhaps through some deadly microbe in the blood, have lost their health and died. leaving widows and children.

The Chairman: The hon. Member seems to me to be making a general speech on the Bill.

1.2 a.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I think the Committee would be inclined to agree with that point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay).

The Chairman: Hon. Members must keep to the Amendment.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: The remark which I intended to make was that if this Amendment means anything at all it means the discussion of the vexed question of the means test. During the ten years I have been a Member of this House I know that we have spent hours and hours on this very topic of the means test. We have spent a whole night's sitting on it, and the most active part has been taken in it by hon. Members opposite especially the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who is exceed-


ingly quiet to-night. Surely we are entitled to spend an hour or more to-night on the very same question as regards the distribution of money among ourselves.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Chairman: I see no reason to accept the Motion

1.4 a.m.

Sir P. Colfox: It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) has fallen into the same error as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They both appear to think that this Amendment deals with the question of whether or not there shall be a means test. I submit that that is not really the purpose of the Amendment. When my hon. Friend started this discussion by moving the Amendment he made the suggestion that we should consider at the same time as this Amendment two later Amendments to the Schedule. You, Sir Dennis, ruled that that was inappropriate, and, therefore, the discussion has been rigidly confined to the particular Amendment before the Committee at this moment. But it seems to me that whatever might be the case with regard to the Amendments to the Schedule, which no doubt do raise the question of a means test, there is no doubt that this one does not do so.
This Amendment is merely concerned with the question whether or not the financial position of the applicant shall be taken into consideration. That is not, I submit, the application of a means test. A means test, if it means anything, surely means that the means of the applicant shall be rigidly defined as so much a year or so much a month or week, as the case may be. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now stated that he considered that, although this was not a perfect Bill, it was necessary for the purpose of the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act that there should be a means test applied to the recipients of these pensions. I suggest that that is wide of the mark in the present discussion. It will be extremely pertinent and much to the point when we reach the discussion—in fact, I expect two discussions on the Amendments to the first

Schedule; but at the moment all we are discussing is whether or not the means of the applicant shall be taken into consideration. The Socialist party, we know, are strongly opposed to the imposition of a means test, but even they must be prepared to agree that this phrase or condition in the Bill that before a pension shall be awarded to an applicant regard must be paid to the means of that applicant is a very wide one.
I am extremely sorry to have to interrupt the conversation which is going on the Benches around me. I hope that whatever I have said will be given due weight by those hon. Members who are still in doubt as to which way they shall cast their votes on this particular Amendment, and, although I, for one, regret extremely that we have been favoured with so meagre an amount of advice from those on the Opposition Benches who profess and call themselves experts on the question of the means test, I have definitely made up my mind that the Amendment should be resisted and the particular words referred to should be retained in the Bill.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Wakefield: The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) made an eloquent appeal for guidance from both sides of the Committee and that appeal was responded to by a few words from the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), but there is a quarter of the Committee from which, I think, hon. Members can well receive valuable guidance. The Amendment under consideration has to do with widows and children, and I think it would be of great benefit to the Committee if an hon. Lady Member were to give her opinion to the Committee on this very important matter which does concern them after all. I would like to suggest at this juncture, we should have some special advice from some hon. Lady Member present in the Committee.

Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The CHAIRMAN declared that the "Ayes" had it and proceeded to call the next Amendment.

Hon. Members: "No."

The Chairman: If there are hon. Members who seriously wish to challenge a


Division I will put it again. I do expect a little more—if I may put it in that way —decent compliance with the ordinary traditions of the House, and that hon. Members who wish to challenge should challenge at the proper time.

Division No. 255.]
AYES.
[1.15 a.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Paling, W.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Grentell, D. R.
Pearson, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Petherick, M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Groves, T. E.
Poole, C. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Harbord, Sir A.
Quibell, D. J. K


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hayday, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Bottom, A. C.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, H, (Lewisham, W.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Holdsworth, H.
Rowlands, G.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Burke, W. A.
Hunter, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Cary, R. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Chater, D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Sloan, A.


Cooks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Kjrkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Collindridge, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Colman, N. C. O.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lawson, J, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Critchley, A.
Leach. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J, (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Liddall, W. S.
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lindsay. K. M
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lipson, D. L.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Sulcliffe, H.


Day, H.
Logan, D. C.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dobbie, W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thurlte, E.


Dugdale, Captain T. L
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Duggan, H. J.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Duncan, J. A. L.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McKie, J. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Eastwood, J. F.
MacLaren, A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Eckersley, P. T.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede., J. C.
Magnay, T.
Watson, W. McL.


Edge, Sir W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Markham, S. F.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Emery, J. F.
Messer, F.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Milner, Major J.
Wilmot, John


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Frankel, D.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. York C


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, s)



Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Garro Jones, G. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H,
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Commander Sir Archibald


Gibson R. (Groenock)
Oliver, G. H.
Southby and Sir Irving Albery.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 20.592

NOES.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Hambro, A. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holmes, J. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L.(Hull)


Crossley, A. C.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Wragg, H.


Fleming, E. L.
Lewis, O.



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.



Gledhill, G.
Marsden, Commander A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOESߞ


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Mr. Erskine Hill and Mr. Hely-Hutchinson.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end, to insert:
 Provided that no payment shall be made to a person entitled to a pension under the Political Offices' Pension Act, 1869.
The case contemplated is where an ex-Member has a choice of going on this fund or else obtaining a pension under the old Act. I want to be sure that he shall not come on to our fund where he comes under the Political Office Pension Act. I may say that it is not unlikely that he will prefer our fund to the older Act, because one has to remember that our fund is secret and payments from it are not publicly known, whereas every payment under the Political Offices' Pension Act is published, and a man might prefer the method of secrecy to that of publicity. I should not trouble to move this were it not that in dealing with the Prime Minister's pension a couple of years ago we made an analogous provision to prevent overlapping between the old Act and the new. It seems to me that this proviso should be made here.

1.26 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: It does net seem to me that this insertion is really necessary. T quite recognize that technically what my right hon. Friend says might be justified, but these are the actual circumstances. There used to be a limited number of what were called political offices' pensions. The first class, I think, was £2,000 per annum, the second class was £1,200 per annum and the third was £800 per annum. It is quite true that they are expressed in the Act as pensions not exceeding these sums, but it has always been the case in the past history of these pensions that whether the pension was the first or second class, it was the amount I have mentioned. Except for one award, which was surrendered within six months, no pension under that Act has been awarded since 1905, and there is no pension being drawn under that Act now. I do not think I am going too far when I say

that I think the view more recently taken is that that Act ought not to be employed. It is quite true that we did put a reference to it in the Act two years ago, but then we were dealing with a retiring pension of £2,000 a year. Here we are dealing with a scheme which might come to the assistance of persons as long as their total income including what they get under this scheme does not exceed £225 a year. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be carrying the matter rather far to say "provided always that a person is not getting more than £225 a year or shall not be drawing one of these political pensions."

Mr. Denman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The next: amendment selected by the Chair is that in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley).

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance? There is an Amendment in my name and that of certain other hon. Members, and another Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) both of which seek to raise the issue of whether the contributions to the fund shall be compulsory or voluntary. I wish to submit to you respectfully that this is a very real issue, and a very important issue. It does not appear that any other Amendment raises it, and I want to ask if you will re-consider your decision and call one or the other of the Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the Amendment has not been selected. Those considerations which the hon. Member gave were present to the Chair when the Amendments were considered. After all, the Second Reading governs the selection, and the principle was decided there. Therefore, I am afraid that the Amendment cannot be selected.

1.29 a.m.

Mr. Crossley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "twelve pounds," and to insert "two per cent."
I would start by assuring the Committee that this is an absolutely serious Amendment. I only regret there are not more members of the Cabinet present, because I hate to have to do behind their backs, metaphorically speaking, what I would rather do before their faces. The whole assumption of the finances of this Bill is that between Member and Member there shall be an equal payment. This amendment is directly aiming at making a truth of that assumption. I would most strongly assert that a flat rate payment of £12 between Member and Member is not an equal payment. If I may give a small list of examples: Take £12 at the very top of the scale, the salary of the Prime Minister. It is under one-eighth per cent. On a Cabinet Minister it is under one-quarter per cent. On the salary of the Leader of the Opposition it is just over one-half per cent. On the salary of a junior Minister it is under one per cent, and on the salary of an ordinary Member, a backbench Member, it is exactly two per cent. I apologise for the fact that I cannot give exactly what it is on the salary of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, but possibly some concession might be made on that point. That is an obvious demonstration of the unfairness of the incidence of this tax �ž and I decline to call it anything else but a tax, whatever dodge the Exchequer likes to hide behind in its nomenclature in this deduction from Members' salaries.
That is not the only unfairness, because whereas at the top of the scale the Prime Minister is only to pay Income Tax on one-eighth per cent, on what he does not receive, the ordinary private Member is to pay Income Tax on two per cent, of what he does not receive. There is yet another point I would make. Equal sacrifice is very different between a rich Cabinet Minister and the poor back-bench Member. In all our principles of national legislation—and here I am sure I shall receive the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members opposite —in all our principles of financial legislation we have an ascending scale. The smaller income pays less, the higher income pays most, and the House will judge that we are being generous in that

all we are asking in this Amendment is that the payment as between every Member of the House shall be in equal proportion to the amount of money he receives. I do not think that there is anything more I need say on this Amendment. It is a very simple and very fair Amendment, and if hon. Members apply the standard to it which hon. Members opposite apply to every other form of financial legislation they will say we are not pressing enough on Cabinet Ministers. I think this Amendment would help to improve what I believe already is regarded as a very time-wasting and untimely Bill.

Mr. Denman: On a point of procedure. Colonel Clifton Brown, can you tell me if you propose to call the next Amendment which deals with a similar point?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think this Amendment is called to cover the Amendment to which the hon. Member refers.

1.36 a.m.

Sir A. Southby: On the Second Reading of this Bill I said it seemed to me that we were to have a forced contribution as distinct from a contributory fund. That those who have the most should pay most is the principle admitted in the other forced levy—Income Tax. Hon. Members opposite who have always held that the well-to-do should pay most can hardly depart from that opinion when it comes to this Fund. There is one point I would like to raise. I think I am right in saying that in certain circumstances ex-Cabinet Ministers are entitled to a pension, and it is obvious that for these pensions they would never have contributed anything at all. I do not know what the regulation is, but if that is the case it seems that those whose emoluments are higher than those of the ordinary Member are perhaps in a privileged position in which their ordinary confreres are not. It has been argued that the pool is too small. I think it is. It was too small when you were considering Members only who fell on hard times, and it certainly will be now you have brought in widows and orphans. It seems all wrong to suggest that this Fund should be augmented by generous gifts, the idea that one should come down on Viscount Nuffield for £50,000, and it cannot be right that that should be contemplated. It was said that generous contributions would be given by men who desired to help. I am certain


it is not right that the Fund should receive contributions of that kind. Therefore, it does seem to be an argument in favour that there should be some difference in contributions between those who have large incomes as against those who have only small incomes.

1.39 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: It may be invidious and indelicate for me to make observations on this matter, but the hon. and. gallant Member has suggested a position which is not correct, and which I wish to correct at once. I believe there is a common impression among certain people that Cabinet Ministers after- they retire are entitled to pensions. There is no provision in the law which provides that Cabinet Ministers after retirement should have pensions. The Political Offices Pensions Act which was spoken of on the last Amendment was the only source from which anything of that sort could have been derived, and, as I said, that has fallen into desuetude. I believe there is no case of it being used, and I think it is contrary to practice to use it. The natural consequence is the step which hon. Members joined in taking quite recently, which did provide a pension for an ex-Prime Minister. That pension, and the pension provided for a Lord Chancellor are, as far as I am aware, the only pensions which exist in our system in respect of anybody who has been a Cabinet Minister. I am making no sort of complaint of what my hon. Friend said; it is very natural that he should have mentioned the point, but I think it would be well if it were thoroughly known outside that there is no truth in it at all, and nobody who has been a Cabinet Minister, except the cases I have just mentioned, is drawing any pension from the State in respect of that matter.
It rests with the Committee what to decide on this proposal. No doubt it can perfectly well be carried by a majority of private Members in this House, but I think it is none the less a proposal which, on reflection, the Committee will not be disposed to accept. As the hon. Member who moved it said, it would be so drafting the Bill that the Prime Minister, whoever he happens tobe—I am not speaking of any particular Prime Minister—shall contribute £200 a year. We shall see whether that is the view of the Committee as a whole. There was the increase of

the payment to hon. Members of this House to £600 a year. We did not apply that to Ministers of the Crown, because as they already received considerable salaries it was thought that it would be right to treat that £600 as being, as it were, embedded in that sum. You do not go far wrong if you say that a Minister of the Crown receives £600 a year as a Member of this House, plus a further sum which makes up his total salary. That is not stating it very inaccurately. What is proposed would not be fair in the case of a Minister of the Crown—a Member of this House—whose salary as a Member of Parliament is treated as being included in the larger payment. The larger payment he receives for special work. He has to give up all other work to do it. If it is thought at any time that such salaries are not at the right level, there are proper ways in which they may be reviewed, but it would be turning this scheme all upside down if we were to say, for instance, that the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman, who are members of this House and who certainly have very special work to perform, should contribute, not £12 a year, as the Bill says, but an amount which is to be a percentage of the remuneration which they receive for being Chairman and Deputy-Chairman. That seems to me to be taming the arrangement all upside down.

Mr. Crossley: Does the Chancellor really suppose that all sorts of private Members give up lucrative employment to become Members of the House? It is surely a monstrous thing to add on to the argument the suggestion that hon. Members in all parts of the House do not give up all sorts of lucrative employment. It is putting too light a construction on the dignity of hon. Members of this House.

Sir J. Simon: I hope I am not doing that. From my own experience as a private Member of this House I know that all hon. Members may give up the whole of their professional salaries while they are Members, in order to do public work. I know that very well. There are many cases where that is done, but actually a man who becomes a Minister is not able, as an ordinary Member is, to go on earning his ordinary livelihood in the ordinary way. I am not saying that on behalf of one particular Minister or the other. It is in the very nature of things and applies to all. What I am suggesting —and it is for the Committee to decide


—that in the circumstances to treat everybody as having a salary of £600 as a Member is fair.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I apologise to the right lion. Gentleman for interrupting him, but is it not a fact that Ministers are not considered by the Income Tax people as receiving £600 of their total salary as Members of Parliament, because, in fact, Ministers have to pay Income Tax on the whole of their salary, and they cannot make deductions like other hon. Members of this House from their £600 on account of expenses?

Sir J. Simon: I think that is the exact point in mind. I was going to mention it. I will only say that the point just made does not seem to me to make the position of Ministers more exclusive. It means that they suffer a disability which hon. Members do not suffer. A Minister, say, a Junior Whip, gets £1,000 as salary, and is not entitled under the Income Tax laws to deduct a single farthing in respect of the work he has to do as the representative of his constituency. He has to pay on the whole amount of his salary, whereas a private Member with a salary of £600 is entitled to deductions. Yet it is said that this Amendment should apply to the actual amounts received, and in the case of a Minister the contribution should be a fixed percentage. I submit to the Committee that in fixing this contribution it is fair to treat every hon. Member of the House on an equality in the sense that they get £600 as members, though, as a matter of fact, Ministers have very heavy duties cast upon them. I should be sorry if it were thought that it would be an improvement that a Prime Minister should contribute £200 instead of the £12 which the Bill proposes. This is not a personal matter but a question of providing for the proper framing of the scheme. If Ministers as a class want to provide some fund from which they are going to assist ex-Ministers, be it so. That, no doubt, would be based on the salaries of Ministers, but in this scheme I should have thought it was right to devise a contribution of say, roughly, £12 for each hon. Member.

1.48 a.m.

Mr, Denman: I regard it as a little hard that my Amendment should come under the umbrella of this Amendment

which we are now discussing because mine seeks to do precisely the opposite from that which the present Amendment proposes to do. The present one seeks to take a larger deduction from certain salaries but mine seeks to make a smaller deduction where the salaries are less than £600. There are two cases which I have in mind, one which will be familiar to many hon. Members. We had a 10 per cent, reduction in our salaries and instead of getting £400 we got £360. It seems to me it is clear that if we have to have a cut in our salaries, the figure should be based on a proportion of the deduction. Then there is the other case where hon. Members are receiving less than their salaries. It would mean that they would pay a proportion of the salaries rather than a fixed sum of £12. My Amendment suggests that there should be a deduction of one-fiftieth of what they receive. That seems a reasonable method. I cannot possibly support the Amendment which has been moved because it is precisely the reverse of my own Amendment.

1.50 a.m.

Sir P. Colfox: 1 was interested to hear the Chancellor's speech in opposition to this Amendment. It all boils down to this: the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in his view it was not fair that one Member in this House, because he is a Minister, should pay more pounds per year than another Member who is not a Minister. I suppose it is all a matter of opinion and point of view. It seems to me that that is exactly what is fair, that each of us should pay to the fund—if indeed this fund is to be set up—in proportion to the amount which each receives by way of emoluments for the work we do in Parliament. I cannot see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say that this is unfair. After all, we have in a recent Amendment agreed to the principle of a means test for the recipient of the pension. It seems to me just as fair that we should have a means test operating in the reverse direction to decide how many pounds each individual should subscribe to this fund for the benefit of impecunious Members and dependants. The suggestion is that everybody should subscribe, not the same number of pounds per year, but the same proportion or fraction of his emoluments, and, to my mind, there could be absolutely nothing fairer than


that, granted, of course, that the scheme is to be set up, which I deplore altogether. Since we have already agreed to the means test in one direction, it seems to me only right, proper, and fair that we should establish a means test in the other direction and should not expect the poor, impecunious Member on the back Benches to pay as much to this fund as the plutocratic Member on the Front Bench. I therefore support the Amendment.

1.54 a.m.

Mr. Raikes: I confess that I was not impressed by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. He has pointed out that once a man holds office, he has to thrust aside any other work. But he left out of account that anyone on the Front Bench, when he goes out of office, has a far better chance of making money in the City. There the two classes of Ministers—members of the Cabinet and Under-Secretaries. The Under-Secretaries get the humble salary of £1,500 a year, but, either fortunately or unfortunately, Parliament is more or less a one-way street, and an Under-Secretary at a reasonable age, even though he may make a "bloomer," may almost certainly count on getting into the Cabinet at some time.

Mr. Bracken: Is the hon. Member referring to what is called "the Rake's Progress"?

Mr. Raikes: I assure the hon. Member that it is far too late in the night to consider "the Rake's Progress," but I venture, in all seriousness, to point out that the Minister mounts slowly up from being an Under-Secretary to the position of an upper Minister, and in the ordinary turn of political fortune the Front Benchers change places. Then the Cabinet Minister has every opportunity of being extremely comfortable in some other sphere of life. His Cabinet rank has made his name. He has shown the powers that be that he has sufficient intelligence to make the House listen to him. What about the wretched private Member who has to pay £12 a year out of his salary of £600? He may have had to give up the whole of his professional or business career in order to be a useful Member of Parliament, and he gets nothing out of it. Later on he may lose his seat. He may have to pay £12 for innumerable years for innumerable other people. Members of the Front Bench,

with the advantage they have can very well afford to pay rather more to the fund than the man who may have sacrificed everything for all time and who pays £12 out of the only money that he possesses or is likely to possess. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment.

1.58 a.m.

Sir John Haslam: I hope the Committee will forgive me for repeating what I have said on a previous occasion, that in organisations where contributions are paid in respect of unemployment pay, sickness benefit, or pensions everybody, irrespective of the wages received, pays the same contribution. But I would ask the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) whether he is prepared to add 2 per cent. of his income in respect of his contribution. That would be a real means test, and if the proposers of the Amendment are prepared to carry a means test to its logical conclusion, they will get many adherents.

2. a.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that most of the hon. Members who have supported this Amendment have been Members who oppose the scheme in to but I am one of those who supported the Bill on its Second Reading, and I want now to support this Amendment. I seem to have heard of some slogan, "Each according to his means, and to each according to his needs." The question of need should be fully considered, and I think I am not illogical if I ask that need should be considered.

Mr. McCorquodale: Why should not means be considered?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the hon. Member's suggestion will receive very little support. I have listened with the greatest interest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer answering the points put in favour of this Amendment, and, as I see it, he started off by saying that the movers of the Amendment wanted to take £200 a year from the Prime Minister. I do not think we want to bring- any personalities into this discussion, but he wanted to make some point about the fact that £600 a year was not added to the Minister's salary but was embedded in it. I do not see that that has very much to do with it. If he has his salary plus £600, he may well give two per cent, of it. I recognise that when the


Chancellor of the Exchequer chose politics in preference to the Bar he gave up a great income, but if I was offered by him a seat on the Front Bench, I would sacrifice my small practice. The Chancellor also made some point about Income Tax, which, if I understand it, was that he was not allowed to claim deductions which hon. Members are allowed to claim. It struck me as very strange to hear that he was complaining, as the remedy lies in his own hands. This Bill is apparently to bring about a change in the Income Tax laws. I was not impressed by the strength of the arguments that he used against this Amendment, and I hope the Committee will support the Amendment.

Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said he hoped the Committee would believe him when he said he was bringing in a serious Amendment. I always have some doubts when I hear someone say that. It is unnecessary when a thing is serious to point out how serious it is. When we were young we all enjoyed the sport of baiting the masters, and it seems perhaps that when some of us are older, we enjoy the sport of baiting the front Bench and our elders in Parliament. Personally, I do not think that it is exactly fair to raise this Amendment. (Interruption.) I am going to try and explain, if the hon. Member, who has had his say, will let me. It seems to me that this is a benevolent fund and a benevolent fund for the institution of the House of Commons where people pay equal contributions and expect, if they get into circumstances which warrant benefit, to receive equal benefit. I have never heard of a case where people are forced to pay different contributions for the opportunity of receiving the same benefit. Furthermore, to suggest that a Cabinet Minister, who possibly has no other income but what he earns as a Cabinet Minister, should pay two per cent, of that total income into this fund while- the private Member, such as the hon. Member who introduced this Amendment, has the opportunity, which he readily takes, of enlarging his income outside and need not pay on the proportion of that income which he earns outside, seems to be greatly unfair. There are only two ways of making this fair, and one is that that

two per cent, should be taxed on the total income of all Members of Parliament as ascertained by Income Tax charges, which would bring in a considerable sum, but would materially alter the whole conception of this Bill, or else to tax Members on that portion of their salary which they earn as Members, namely, £600 a year. I am somewhat in sympathy with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), but I would seriously put to the Committee, if I may, that to make this suggestion at the present time is to try and wreck the whole Bill.

Mr. Crossley: Whatever this Amendment may be, it is not a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. McCorquodale: I think that is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. I would ask my fellow Members of the House of Commons to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. Member not see that if there is more money in the Fund it will not wreck the Bill?

Mr. McCorquodale: I would suggest to the Committee very seriously that this is rather an unfair suggestion and that we should have equal contributions for equal Members to benefit, as in every other benevolent fund set up in the Kingdom, and we should not support this proposal.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Cartland: I think the speech we have just listened to is really deplorable. A numbers of charges have been levelled at my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley), who moved the Amendment, which seems to me one of the most important Amendments on the Bill. He has been characterised as foolish, unserious and reckless. Anybody who listened to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment knows that he is none of those things, and much the most foolish thing we have had so far is the speech just delivered. No doubt the hon. Member was affected by the result of the recent match at Lords, and perhaps thought that he was once again back in his schooldays. — [An Hon. Member: "Debag him."]—An opportunity perhaps may arise at a later stage for that. I must say that I am deeply grateful to the Chief Whip that he has brought forward the dis-


cussion of this Bill at this hour, because those of us who are speaking on it are certainly not delaying any Government legislation. I know that he must be the first to feel that those of us who are speaking on it are obviously deeply moved on this question and, like the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), he must feel that those of us who always have supported him are continuing the good work of being Members of the House to the best of our ability.
I must say that I was very deeply disappointed with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from a rather different angle from that which has been expressed so far. As I see it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by not accepting this Amendment, is making the division between the front Bench and the back Benches very much deeper than it is already— [An Hon. Member: "Impossible."] —Perhaps the Chancellor can perform the impossible. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Essex (Mr. Raikes) gave examples about how to get on to the front Bench as an Under-Secretary and how gradually, by a long process, to attain Cabinet rank. He ought to have started lower down, because nobody becomes an Under-Secretary unless he has first been in the Whips' Office, with a few very notable exceptions. One in particular is more notable for the speech that she delivered last week than almost any other. But the point is that once a Member gets on to the front Bench, he is gradually weaned away from all his associations on the back Benches. This is becoming worse and worse, as the National Government look forward to at least another 25 years in power. Therefore, as I see it, by not accepting this Amendment, the Chancellor is laying up very grave troubles for future Governments from this side of the House.
I was much impressed by reading the other day that members of the French Cabinet had voluntarily agreed among themselves to levy from their own salaries a certain percentage to be given for national defence. That made a vast impression upon the Chamber of Deputies. I believe that if the Chancellor had said that, even if he could not accept this two per cent., he would accept something on those lines, so that Ministers' salaries, which have been raised in the lifetime of this Parliament, should be asked to make a greater

contribution towards this Fund, then I believe he would have made a very great impression upon the House of Commons. It would at once have brought together the front bench and the back benches. I think it is a terrible mistake for a Cabinet Minister or for an Under-Secretary to forget that they are primarily Members of Parliament. It is much more important that they are Members of Parliament than that they are Cabinet Ministers. When, you are dealing with a fund which is a Members of Parliament Fund, then anything that Cabinet Ministers can do or say to accept the responsibility of a Member of Parliament because they are Cabinet Ministers should be done.
When it is suggested that my hon. Friend might have extended the principle of the Amendment, well, why not? There would be no very great difficulties about it, except that again you are going to run into the trouble of the means test on income. But when the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) suggests that it is not fair that this Amendment should be put forward, I really cannot understand why, when we are discussing a domestic issue of salaries, it is not fair to question whether the front Bench should make an added contribution to this Fund. You may get a Cabinet Minister who falls upon evil days and will have to go to the Fund. He has enjoyed for many years a far greater income than any back bencher, and he has made only the same contribution. I feel myself that it is perfectly fair to raise this point. The analogy is already there, in taxation. You have already got scale taxation in death duties and Income Tax. On the other side, you have also got things like unemployment and national health insurance where you draw a certain line and say that nobody may enter the scheme above a certain limit, and nobody may get benefits unless they contribute. I would ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not reconsider this question and whether it is not possible for the Ministers who are getting much bigger salaries to make a greater contribution. If they do, I believe it will be doing something very desirable in the interests of the House as a whole.

2.18 a.m.

Sir Gifford Fox: I would not have intervened if the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) had not suggested a


pension scheme where there were different rates of contribution. May I draw attention to the report of the Departmental Committee on Pensions for Members? In Appendix 3 it is made quite clear that the French Members of Parliament are allowed to pay double the contribution into the fund, and, if they do that, they become eligible for double pension. I would like to ask the mover of this Amendment whether he has any idea that when Cabinet Ministers pay a higher rate of contribution they should, if found to be in need, be entitled to a higher rate of pension from the fund.

2.19 a.m.

Captain Heilgers: I cannot see that there is anything unfair about this Amendment. I should have thought that Ministers on the Front Bench would have welcomed it. It seems to me that they have received a much larger amount of money from the State than ordinary Members, and if they do come on to the rocks, I think they must have been extremely unwise to have reached such a position. I should have thought that if they had been foolish enough to dissipate their resources and they had a conscience at all, it would be a great source of satisfaction to them to feel that when they came to ask for a pension they were in a position to say that they had contributed more than others. For that reason I have to support the Amendment.

Mr. Braithwaite: I desire very briefly to approach this matter from an angle which will at least be familiar to the Chancellor, because during recent weeks on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we have heard the right hon. Gentleman get up time and again from that Bench and regret the fact that it was necessary to increase the taxation in one form or another. The reason that he has always given is that national expenditure is up, and it is his duty to find the money for the purpose of that expenditure. Since the Committee stage started to-night the extent of the scheme has gone up to a degree which it is extremely difficult to calculate, by the inclusion of children through the acceptance of the first Amendment. I want to suggest to the Committee that the analogy of Income Tax and Surtax is hardly correct in this matter. The analogy is surely that of the levy, and in all levy schemes set up by the

Government — and I am thinking of the milk scheme and the 3d. per gallon provision whereby whoever sends 50 gallons will pay half as much as will he who sends 100 gallons —

Mr. Petherick: I do not quite understand the hon. Member when he says that the extent has gone up as a result of the first Amendment. Surely the amount of money paid into the Fund every year is limited. It is 12 times 615. There is only that amount to spend, and you cannot spend any more.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interruption, because possibly I did not make myself clear. If the extension of the scheme to children is to be of any value, it is obviously necessary to increase the amount available for distribution. I suggest that it is necessary to obtain from Cabinet Ministers, not £ 12, but £ 100,and from the Leader of the Opposition £ 40 per annum, because by that means, on a rough calculation, we shall increase the annual amount available by between £ 1,500 and £ 2,000 per annum, which will make it possible to give the account a real value for children.

2.23 a.m.

Mr. Bracken: There has been a powerful speech from an hon. Member behind me, and another flow of rhetoric from another hon. Member opposite, and the two seem to have clashed together. But once again we have had a "mute, inglorious" silence from the Benches of the Opposition. There was a time when they made statements about equal pay for equal work, but there is not a word about that now. On this occasion I praise them for their silence. I cannot see that there is any case for the Amendment at all. We have had a series of speeches about the wonderful incomes of Ministers, how they get more money than other Members, and how they can retire and buy country parks. But all those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to look through the rather pitiful wills of those gentlemen who have been working for years in the public service will know that no Cabinet Minister ever makes anything out of politics. It is all very well to talk about vast incomes of £ 5,000 a year compared with the £ 600 of an ordinary Member, but does anyone ever consider the expense attached to the


post? I am not talking now about Parliamentary expenses. But in the case of a Cabinet Minister, directly he becomes a Minister he is expected to contribute greater sums to his local charitable associations.

Mr. Liddall: But he does not.

Mr. Bracken: I can tell the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) that he will never have any practical experience of the problem. I think it would be a great mistake if it went forth that Ministers make money out of politics. The story is quite absurd. Whether he be Liberal, Socialist, or Conservative, he makes nothing out of politics. There is another argument, that when they are Ministers they can command plums in the City. I can assure hon. Members that that is not the case. That might have been true of by gone times, but it is in no sort the case now. While I am in agreement with many of the observations which have been made, I think it would be unwise to adopt the Amendment.

2.26 a.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: I support the Amendment, which I regard as constructive. It must be clear that in all cases a Minister becomes richer as a result of being a Minister. Those Ministers who are not Members of this House will not be called upon to contribute to the pool under the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a point that Cabinet Ministers had to give up their careers upon assuming office. It is true in many cases that they do have to make sacrifices. Equally it is true that there are certain posts which are still open to them, and in some cases I believe there is nothing to prevent a Minister still being a director.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[2.30 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cape, T.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Cary, R. A.
Eckersley P. T.


Adamson, W. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ede, J. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Charlston, H. C.
Edge, Sir W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Chater, D.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J.(Armagh)
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Ammon, C. G.
Cooks. F. S.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Collindridge, F.
Emery, J. F.


Barnes, A. J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Barr, J.
Court hope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Critchley, A.
Findlay, Sir E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Daggar. G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R T. H.


Bevan, A.
Dalton, H.
Frankel, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Bracken, B.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Gardner, B. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Garro Jones, G. M.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Day, H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Denman, Hon. R D.
Gibson R. (Greenock)


Buchanan, G.
Dobbie, W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Mr. McCorquodale: That is not right.

Mr. Mitchell: I have no wish to make statements which are incorrect. I was under the impression that it is perfectly in order for a Minister to be a director of a private company, but I only make that point in passing. There are many sacrifices which private Members have to make — big sacrifices of time. It has been suggested that all Members should give 2 per cent, of their total income to the scheme. But the House of Commons cannot say what outside income has to do with services rendered in this House. There is another point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) that this Amendment was fundamentally unjust because it demanded unequal contributions from Members. I suggest that this scheme seems to resemble largely a staff pension scheme. In many cases staff pension schemes have different rates of contribution from different members of the staff, according to their income.

Sir J. Haslam: Is not that one in which they have different contributions for different pensions?

Mr. Mitchell: In my experience I have not come across a scheme where different contributions are excluded. There has to be a certain amount of give and take. I feel that the movers of the Amendment have made out a very good case, and I hope the House will support them.

Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 45.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sexton. T. M.


Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Shinwell, E.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McKie, J. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Groves, T. E.
Maclean, N.
Simpson, F. B.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Magnay, T.
Sloan, A.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marsden, Commander A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Harbord, Sir A.
Marshall, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Mathers, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Haslam. Sir J. (Bolton)
Maxton, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayday, A.
Messer, F.
Stephen, C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.
Stewart, W. J, (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague. F
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Summer skill, Dr. Edith


Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Holdsworth, H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Hollins, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Tomlinson, G.


Isaacs, G. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Jagger, J.
Paling, W.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A,
Watson, W. McL.


John, W.
Pearson, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Patherick, M.
Westwood, J.


Keeling, E. H.
Pathick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Poole, C. C.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kirkwood, D.
Pries, M. P.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Groydon, S.)


Lawson, J. J.
Procter, Major H. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leach, W.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Wilmot, John


 Lee. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Leonard, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lewis, O.
Ritson, J.
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


Lindsay, K. M.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
TELLERS FOR THEAYES. —


Logan, D. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Lunn, W.
Rowlands, G.
Pownall and Sir Francis


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Fremantle.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hambro, A V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannah, I. C.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepworth, J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Hunter, T.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Wragg, H.


Duggan, H, J.
Knox Major General Sir A. W. F.
York, C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Eastwood, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Mr. Crossley and Lieut.-Colonel


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Acland - Troyte.

2.38 a.m.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "Commons" to the end of the Subsection.
It is not very easy to see why these nine lines should have been put in. If I understand it aright, the reason is that where an hon. Member is not drawing his salary the State steps in and gains thereby. We have been told by the Prime Minister with great definiteness that the State is making no contribution towards this Fund, but in the case of a man who receives nothing, this makes the State pay on his behalf. By leaving out these

lines we should, at any rate, be enabling the Prime Minister to repeat with greater accuracy than before that the State will then be making no contribution.

2.40 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: As the Committee know, provision is made every year by vote that each Member of the House may draw the salary of £ 600 a year. The proposal is that £ 12 should be put to this fund in respect of each Member, even though a Member may not be proposing to draw his salary. That is treating every Member alike. I cannot agree with the view that the effect of that is to make a charge on the public funds.

2.41 a.m.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say about this, the fact remains that the Exchequer will be worse off than under the Amendment. A Member might well be content that his salary should be returned for the benefit of the Exchequer. He might not desire to return it partially for the benefit of the fund. I think it is most undesirable that in this Bill there should be any provision whatsoever which involves a deduction of income or putting the Exchequer in a worse position than it would otherwise be.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: It does seem that when an hon. Member voluntarily gives up his salary it would be most unfair that he should have a contribution to this fund forced upon him, and that he should be taxed on the amount when he is not receiving any salary at all.

2.43 a.m.

Mr. Raikes: I feel bound to make an observation on this matter from an entirely different point of view. It is rather unfortunate, if the result of this Amendment is to be that those who do not draw their salaries make no contribution what-so-ever to the Fund. It would be far more in accordance with the traditions of the House that the salaries that were not drawn should be given in to to the Fund in order to make it a more successful and more effective Fund. I am bound to protest against any effort in any quarter of the House to take away money which might reasonably, and without any sacro-fice, be placed in the Fund to the benefit of the poorer Member.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[2.52 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Ll.-Col. G. J.
Hambro, A. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hepworth, J.
Petherick, M.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Higgs, W. F.
Procter, Major H. A.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holdsworth, H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Horsbrugh, Florence
South by, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Hunter, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crossley, A. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Duggan, H. J.
Keeling, E. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eastwood, J. F.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lewis, O.
Wragg, H.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
York, C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.



Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Marsden, Commander A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. — 


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Mr. Hely-Hutchinson and Mr. Raikes.

2.45 a.m.

Sir A. Southby: I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider between now and the Report Stage what has been put forward by the hon. Member for South-east Essex (Mr.Raikes). If he could see his way to bring forward an Amendment whereby any salary or portion of salary not drawn by a Member could be given to the Fund, I think it would meet with the approval on both sides. I do not like the pension scheme, but if we are to have one, let us do the best we can for the Fund.

Sir J. Simon: If an hon. Member does not wish to use his salary but wishes to support the Fund all he need do is to draw it and give it to the Fund.

Sir A. South by: But he must pay tax on it.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I beg to move, '' That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Sir J. Simon: I think it is the wish of a large number of Members that we should carry this through. I should urge hon. Members to co-operate with me in this matter. There are a number of points which we have discussed, and I think we ought now to get through.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member press his Motion?

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: Yes, Sir.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 158.

NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. H. (Poplar, S.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dart lord)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pearson, A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grenfell, O. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Poole, C. C.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Groves, T, E.
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pritt, D. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ritson, J.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hayday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rowlands, G.


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Sexton. T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Shinwell, E.


Burks, W. A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Silverman, S. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Jagger, J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A, (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sloan, A.


Cary, R. A.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charter, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, J, J.
Stephen, C.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Courthope, Col, Rt. Hen. Sir G. L.
Leonard, W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Critchley, A.
Liddall, W. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lindsay, K. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thurlte, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
McKie, J. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
MacLaren, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Magnay, T.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Ede, J. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edge, Sir W.
Marshall, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mathers, G.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Messer, F.
Wilmot, John


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Ll.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Frankel, D.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)



Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES 


Garro Jones, G. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sir Francis Fremantle and


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. McCorquodale.

Original Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee proceeded to a Division:

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL and Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. HELY-HUTCHINSON and Mr. RAIKES were nom-

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[3.10 a.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. O.
Barnes, A. J.
Burke, W. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Barr, J.
Butcher, H. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Cape, T.


Adamson, W. M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cary, R. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Bevan, A.
Charleton, H. C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A, V. (H'lsbr.)
Bossom, A. C.
Chater, D.


Allen, Ll.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Broad, F. A.
Cluse, W. S.


Ammon, C. G.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Cocks, F, S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Buchanan, G.
Collindridge, F.

inated Tellers for the Noes, and the Tellers having come to the Table, it appeared that one of the Tellers for the Ayes had failed to act as Teller.

Whereupon the Chairman again put the Question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes 156; Noes 47.

Colman, N. C.D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pritt, D. N.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L,
Holdsworth, H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Critchley, A.
Hollins, A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Daggar, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Dalton, H.
Jagger, J,
Ritson, J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
John, W.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Day, H.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Dobbie, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton. T. M.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Shinwell, E.


Eckarsley, P. T.
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.


Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Edge, Sir W.
Leonard, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lunn, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Emery, J. F.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Lt.Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Frankel, D.
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gardner, B. W.
Magnay, T.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Garro Jonas, G. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. B.
Thurtle, E.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mathers, G.
Tomlinson, G.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F,
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Watkins, F. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R, Doncaster)
Welsh, J. C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Westwood, J.


Groves, T. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N;)
Neven-Spence, Major B H. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Harbord, Sir A.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parkinson, J. A.
Wilmot, John


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pearson, A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Poole, C. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES 


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Sir Francis Fremantle and


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.
Mr. McCorquodale




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hambro, A. V.
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hepworth, J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Higgs, W. F.
South by, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holmes, J. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
James, Wing-commander A. W. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crossley, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Wragg, H.


Duggan, H. J.
Lewis, O.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C G.
York, C.


Eastwood, J.F.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.



Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McKie, J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Mr. Hely-Hutchinson and


Findlay, Sir E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Mr. Raikes.

3.18 a.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out Subsection (4).
I spoke in favour of this Measure when it was first introduced. Every Measure is ill-timed to some people. I said I thought we would not be taxed, but that is what the promoters of the Bill did not realise. They weakly gave way to the pressure of the strong opponents of the Bill. The promoters cannot fully have considered this. They have become

intimidated by suggestions that it was going to be a charge on the revenue. But the promoters gave way to the claims of the opponents and said, "We will try to please both sides and put in a Clause to deal with it." I demur in common justice to paying tax on money we never see. It is very wrong. The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and says "Yes, you are all very fine fellows. You are paying £ 12 a year — some of you even less — but I will be generous," but then he says a liability must be paid which ought


not to be paid. This is not taking anything away from the revenue. The revenue is simply taking less money and handing it over to people whom they could not possibly ask for Income Tax, namely, the recipients of the pensions, who would be very poorly off. If you want to subscribe to a charity, you make the subscription and you escape Income Tax on it. You pay it for a period of seven years and the revenue does not get any Income Tax; the charities reclaim it. Why should we be put in a position different from that of ordinary charities?
It is a shocking injustice. It is not so much the sum of money involved, as that you say "We are going to charge you £ 15 or £ 16." That is what it amounts to. It is not £ 12.It is deceiving us to say it is £ 12. It is between £ 16 and £ 17, and it may be more — it may be in the case of the Super-taxpayer, with huge obligations, who just comes above the level which brings him into the higher scale. It is not that any majority of hon. Members have any sympathy with Super-taxpayers. But why should we be deceived by it being said that we are paying £ 12? The thing is so fundamentally unjust. That is why I felt at the time that the whole thing was an anomalous proposal. I thought Members of Parliament, who had been 20 or 25 years in this House, really ought to get, if they received salaries at all, some form of pension. The thing should be provided out of general funds, though in times of stress like this we could not propose that. What the Bill proposed was a sort of half-way house of £ 12 a year.
What about the Opposition benches? I feel very uneasy on that point. They will be in a position to say to the country "We took no part in this. We sat and listened and all this is what the Tories have done." I am afraid political capital will be made out of it. I am told that at one of the last elections some political capital was made out of it and that the voters thought Members of Parliament were taking money out of the public funds. They are not taking any money out of the public purse, even if not paying Income Tax, The Chancellor might have said, "If these fellows can afford to give £ 12 out of their meagre salaries, they can just as well afford £ 24 or £ 50," and he might have put treble Income Tax on it. It is just as wrong to put single

Income Tax on it, when we are not legally liable to any Income Tax at all.
However much hon. Members may support the Bill I hope they will vote against this provision and refuse to accept this weak concession made to the opponents of the Bill in order that the Government might say that not only is nothing coming out of the Exchequer, but that they are actually fining Members of Parliament. It is essentially a foolish position and that is why I have moved this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that the Prime Minister invited me to put it down, and I took that to mean that he had some sympathy with what I was proposing. It will not affect me. I am not to be very much longer in this House. I do think that in the interests of fair play it should be agreed that this is a very wrong proposal. That is why I have moved that this Sub-section should be deleted.

3.27 a.m.

Sir P. Colfox: I heartily endorse what has been said by the previous speaker. It seems to me absolutely iniquitous that anybody should be required to pay a tax on money that he cannot under any circumstances receive. It would not be proper on this occasion to enter into a discussion on Income Tax as a whole, nor, indeed, would I be competent to do it because it is a very complicated subject into which none but real experts can enter. It has always seemed to me a most anomalous position that anybody should be required to pay Income Tax on what he does not receive, but, of course, this Sub-section has been inserted into the Bill very obviously in order that the general public may be told that no charge for these pensions will fall upon public funds. There is not the smallest chance that the general public will believe such a statement, nor do I really think it is a true statement, because when we read a little lower down we find that the trustees will be exempt from the payment of Income Tax on all the income of the Fund and on any investment thereof. Clearly the capital subscriptions by Members will have to pay Income Tax before they are received by the trustees, but as far as the invested surplus income from investments is concerned, it seems to me that there is no doubt that but for this provision that income would have to pay tax. Therefore it seems totally inaccurate to say that no charge will fall on the public funds


because a certain amount, and possibly a substantial amount, of Income Tax will be remitted on the income derived from the investments of the Fund.
Possibly I have misinterpreted it and no doubt if I have the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me. But there is no doubt that this provision has been inserted in order that the general public may be told that no charge falls on public funds, though there is not the smallest chance of the general public believing it. Therefore it seems ridiculous to me that this gross injustice should be perpetrated on every Member of Parliament in an endeavour to create an impression which certainly will not be created, because all the general public believe now and will continue to believe, whatever they may be told by Conservative members and candidates — and of course, other politicians are not so careful in their statements— that we, as Members of Parliament, have at this time of national crisis and heavy local expenditure, taken up the time of the House to push through this proposal. I strongly support the deletion of this Sub-section.

3.31 a.m.

Mr. Keeling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that under the existing law a Member of Parliament is not liable to pay tax on a statutory deduction from his salary. There is in fact a provision in the Income Tax law to that effect. I regret that at this hour of the night I am not able to recall the provision, but it does exist. But under this Clause of the Bill a Member of Parliament is to pay a tax which nobody else in the country pays; that is to say, he is to pay Income Tax and Surtax on a statutory deduction from his income. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill:
 I sympathise with his feeling that it is repugnant to pay taxation on income which we have never received, yet a good many of us have to endure that injustice, if it be an injustice, at the present time. The incidence of Surtax comes, not upon the reduced income after it has paid Income Tax, but upon the gross income before the deduction of Income Tax. Therefore, people have to pay Surtax on a certain amount of income which they have never received." — [Official REPORT, 13th July, 1939; Cols. 2571–2572.)
Surely that does not meet the argument. The law applies to every taxpayer whose income is above £ 2,000, but the

case under this Sub-section (4) is entirely different. This Sub-section singles out a particular kind of Surtax or Income Taxpayer for extra taxation —' namely, a Member of Parliament as such. It proposes to alter the Income Tax law to the detriment of Members of Parliament. That is the most extraordinary proposition in this extraordinary Bill. What is the reason for it? I suggest that the only possible one is that the Government are trying to please both the supporters of the Bill and its opponents. They are altering the law in order that the supporters of the scheme may be able to say to objectors that there is no charge on the taxpayers. I submit it is not right to twist the law for any such purpose, and that was the view of the Departmental Committee. You will find this Amendment is in strict accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 20 of the Departmental Committee's report, and I cannot understand how hon. Members can possibly wish to retain Sub-section (4).

3.36 a.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I would like to ask whether a municipal servant who has to contribute to a superannuation scheme is charged Income Tax on the deduction made from his salary, and, if not, why should a Member of Parliament in a compulsory pension scheme have to pay Income Tax on the particular deduction made? Is it a fact that we are to be the only people in the country who are to be singled out in a particular way? Is not this being done in order that we can go to the electors and say nothing has been given out of public money. We ought to have a specific answer to that question before we vote on this Amendment.

3.37 a.m.

Mr. Petherick: Regret has been expressed at the amount of time devoted to this Bill. That is not our fault. Those Members responsible for the promotion of the Bill must have known, when they introduced it, that it would arouse strong hostility, and that consequently many hours of valuable time would have to be devoted to it. The time taken up must be charged to those responsible for the introduction of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment, I appreciate the point of view of those who support it, particularly that of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten).


The case is a strong one that hon. Members ought not to be obliged to pay taxation on money they do not receive. But most of us do feel strongly that the public should not be asked in any way to find money directly or indirectly for Members of Parliament in these bad times, beyond the salaries which are voted to them every year. Therefore, we should adhere to the Clause as it is.

3.40 a.m.

Mr. Bracken: It is intolerable that the Committee should have to deal with a Bill of this kind while a great body of Members do not dare to speak in the Debate. I think their party Whips will forgive them for interrupting because they dare not speak. I was very much impressed by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) and I very much regret that he is leaving this House. I share his view about the Bill as I am neither for it nor against it. I am completely independent on this matter. I am impressed by the hon. Member who says that Members of Parliament are singled out specially and that there is no other class in the community who are taxed as we are now proposing to tax ourselves. I think we are regenerating the old order of the flagellating friars who attempted to commend themselves to the Higher Power by punishing themselves. As a matter of fact there is a great deal of humbug about this proposal. If you look at Sub-section (5) you discover something that is quite remarkable, and that is that if the trustees happen to be extremely lucky in building up a big capital profit on the proceeds of their investments they no not pay any Income Tax. In Subsection (5) the House of Commons on the one hand are trying to obtain a little synthetic virtue by adopting a course which does not cast any burden on the taxpayer, while on the other hand we are putting the trustees in the position that if they make enormous profits on their investments they are not to be taxed merely because it is a House of Commons arrangement. I want to appeal to the spirit of comradeship that exists here [Interruption.'] An hon. Member for one of the Nottingham divisions says "Nonsense." [Interruption.]

Mr. Cocks: You are an expert [Interruption.] You should know that I sit for Broxtowe.

Mr. Bracken: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman recollects the division he sits for. I suggest to him if he wishes to take any part in the debate he should not bellow at me.

Mr. Cocks: I am not bellowing.

Mr. Bracken: Well, he is either mouthing or breathing the word. [Interruption.'] There is another point, and that is that there is a small but worthy class of Ministers in another place, and those Ministers are no better and indeed no worse than the Ministers who sit on the Front Bench. Will the Government say why it is that in that particular Legislature the Ministers are not asked to contribute to the Members pension Funds. I think that this is a very important point and we ought not to do anything to differentiate between the two Legislatures.
I wish to appeal to the members of the Socialist party, for in this matter we are adopting a sort of spurious virtue. We are not actually sacrificing ourselves for the benefit of a few members who have fallen by the wayside. I should have thought that it was absolutely clear that there was no necessity for this particular act of abnegation on our part and I should say it is all humbug.

3.46 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: I recognise that this is an abnormal Bill and I think we are passing it with our eyes open for a good reason — that it is desirable that Members of the House who are in a special degree charged with considering public funds and public charges and are themselves forming what is a domestic fund or pool, should be particularly careful not to give any legitimate ground for the complaint that the revenue of the country is being used. I agree that it is anomalous. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) asked me how the matter stood in the case of superannuation funds of local authorities. There is no doubt about it at all. I have been provided with the actual Section, which says that where, in pursuance of any general Act of Parliament, superannuation allowances or gratuities are payable to individuals holding offices on their retirement and such individuals are by any such Act required to make contributions towards the expenditure of providing allowances or gratuities, such maybe deducted from the amount of their emolument for assessment


to Income Tax for that year. This is a provision made by Parliament, but the individuals concerned are not Members of Parliament who are creating for themselves a scheme from which some of them may benefit. I do not think those terms would apply to this case, but if you inquire what is the general principle of the Income Tax law I certainly would say the general principle of the Income Tax law is that if there is a statutory deduction made from salary you do not, ordinarily speaking, charge people with Income Tax thereon. Let there be no misunderstanding. If we adopt this Sub-section we are not doing what is in the ordinary channel of Income Tax law; we are making an exception, and that is the reason.

Mr. Holdsworth: I gave the case of individuals in municipal service who pay part of their subscription to the superannuation fund and the ratepayers through the rates pay to that fund. The individuals concerned not only escape payment of Income Tax, but apart from their subscriptions they are being helped by fellow ratepayers.

Sir J. Simon: I am endeavouring to say perfectly clearly that we are not applying the usual rule. But it does seem to me that there is good reason for making this exception in this case. I remember the discussions on this subject at an earlier stage, when we had the Money Resolution under discussion. I am not making a reproach to anybody about it, but I am sure I shall be confirmed when I say that one of the strongest objections raised by many hon. Members who are now actually objecting to this Sub-section was that the scheme was one which they must resist because it involved a charge upon public funds. They said with a great deal of force that if it was true of our scheme that, however well-devised in other respects, it could be said and proved to be a charge on public funds, that would condemn it in the eyes of many reasonable citizens, that they would be quite unable to defend it, and that on that ground the scheme was to be opposed.

Mr. Macquisten: Suppose it was increasing the charge on the public funds, would not the Amendment have been ruled out of Order? It was not ruled out of Order for the very reason that this is not a charge on public funds. It may be a

charge on individual Members of Parliament but it is not a charge on public funds.

Sir J. Simon: I shall not argue the point, if the hon. and learned Member does not mind. I think we all know what we mean. I should have thought it was an extremely just observation to say that if, as a result of this; new provision, the amount of Income Tax paid in respect of members' salaries to the Revenue was reduced, the Revenue was losing something.

Mr. Bracken: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain Sub-section (5), which definitely is a charge?

Sir J, Simon: I have it in mind. I was merely saying that this is the way I regard it. I am not seeking for the moment to say that it is not a departure from the ordinary rule. If we were making a scheme for other people who are not legislators I should have thought there was a great deal of justice in the argument not to put in such a provision." It may be pernickety, it may be a scruple, it may be prudent.

Mr. Macquisten: It may be hyprocrisy.

Sir J. Simon: I should be sorry to think that the majority of the House would view this as hypocrisy. At any rate, the reason why this provision is to be included in the Bill is that this is a Members of Parliament Fund. There is no other reason at all. My hon. Friend thinks that all that is contradicted by the provision in Sub-section (5). I do not think it is. There is this very obvious differentiation. The Fund is a new creation which is the result of the legislation we are proposing to pass. If we do not pass this legislation there is no such Fund. You are not depriving the Revenue of anything if you pass legislation which creates this new Fund. As a matter of fact the provision in Sub-section (5) is one which you will find applies in the ordinary way to any superannuation fund. I should have doubted myself whether it would have been absolutely necessary to put it in, because I think there would be a strong argument that in the eyes of the Income Tax law the Fund is a charity, but whether it is or is not, it is quite plain that we cannot be said to be imposing any sort of loss on


the Revenue if we have first to create this Fund by our own self-sacrifice. I do say honestly to anybody who challenges me about it, that we have been very careful, as careful as we can be, in making this mutual plan, to secure that we, the legislators charged with protecting public funds, have not thereby reduced that which would otherwise have come to the public funds. For my part, I am not going to accept the ignorant assertion that I have been taking part in a plan which is going to make the public pay. I know it is not true. The hon. and learned Member knows it is not true and so do his hon. Friends behind him, and I would invite them to pledge themselves to tell everybody that it is not true.

Mr. Lewis: A few hours ago when an Amendment was moved, the effect of which would have been to call for increased contributions from Ministers, my right hon. Friend argued that it was essential that all Members of the House should contribute exactly the same sum. Under this provision, if this Amendment be resisted, the contributions from different Members will not in effect be the same. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, if it was essential a few hours ago that the contributions should be the same from all Members, it is now no longer essential?

Sir J. Simon: I shall endeavour to deal with the point. I do not know whether I shall satisfy the hon. Member and his friends behind him. I think a contribution may fairly be said to be the same if the amount which the Fund receives from each contributor is £ 12, neither more nor less. That I should call a contribution of the same sum of money to the Fund. On the other hand, I quite admit that we have in this country a law of Income Tax and a law of Super-tax which charge different rates according to the total amount of income, and I certainly agree that if this £ 12 belongs to a man within the scale of Super-tax he will in fact, in respect of this £ 12, be paying to the revenue a larger amount than some other people. Indeed, we may carry it further. I think it is also true that there will also be a good many Members of this House who are the poorer Members, wherever they may sit, who, although we are saying that they are to pay Income

Tax, may get relief in various ways and will therefore be paying little or nothing by way of Income Tax. The difference is that you get an equal contribution to the Fund from everybody, but Income Tax and Super-tax are charged to people at different rates according to the amount of their income for Income Tax purposes.

Sir A. Southby: I should not have thought of rising to speak on this Amendment had it not been for the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the debate on 2nd February. He was seeking to find reasons why this Subsection has been put in. The fact really is that during the debate on 2nd February those of us who opposed the Bill said that in our view the contribution would in fact levy a charge, only a small charge it is levy a charge, only a small charge it is true, upon the national finances. If the national finances pay a man £ 600 but he receives only £ 588, then as far as the £ 12 is concerned the money comes out of public finances. The Chancellor resisted that, and he said in reply to myself:
It is agreed, is it not, that if this were done by voluntary arrangement there would be nothing paid out of public funds. How can it come out of public funds because there is an Act of Parliament to regulate the Fund? 
That is perfectly true. It must be perfectly obvious to every Member that the contention we put forward was true in substance and fact. It would have been impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after due consideration, to have resisted the charge that to a very small extent public funds were being charged. To get over that this Clause has been introduced, but do not let us "kid ourselves that it has been introduced for any other reason than for doing away with the accusation. I think it is deplorable that in a debate such as this we have had no speeches from the other side to help us.

Mr. Cocks: We are not all fortunate enough to marry rich wives.

Sir A. Southby: I leave it to the Committee to decide whether that is not a most insulting and disgusting remark. The hon. Member is the only Member on that side of the House who would make such a remark.

Mr. Cocks: I say it again.

Sir A. Southby: I say that this has been put in to put the matter right as far as the charge is concerned. If an hon. Member of the House, no matter on what side he stood, was in the habit of paying a premium of £ 12 a year, he would be able to put that £ 12, in his Income Tax return and obtain relief from Income Tax on it. This £ 12 is in effect only a small contribution and it is unjust that this contribution should have a tax levied on it. If it were a contribution for an insurance company it would not be so charged.

4.2 a.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I hope the Committee is not going to be led astray by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. He reproached me by saying that I had only just come in. I came in quite deliberately on this issue. There is no logical reason why this £ 12 should not claim exemption for Income Tax except for a certain cowardice in telling the electors. Suppose we adjourned the House and went to assemble in Westminster Hall and signed a mutual insurance contract? We are frightened of telling our constituents —

Mr. Petherick: My hon. Friend is accusing some of us of cowardice. It is nothing of the kind. It is that we do not think it right to go to the country now and ask for any form of extra burden to be imposed for our benefit. It is right to tell them.

Sir H. Williams: My hon. Friend has misled himself. If we went to Westminster Hall and signed a piece of paper and made up this Fund, we should get exemption. We are not asking for privileges as Members of Parliament. I am asking that Members should be treated in the

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[4.10 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Chater, D.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Adamson, W. M.
Cooks, F. S.
Frankel, D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Collindridge, F.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Col man, N. C. D.
Gardner, B. W.


Amman, C. G.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Daggar, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Barr, J.
Dalton, H.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Bevan, A.
Day. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Dobbie, W.
Grenfell, D. R.


Broad, F. A.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Buchanan, G.
Ede, J. C.
Groves, T. E.


Burke, W. A.
Edge, Sir W.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Cape, T.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

same way as the rest of the community. Why should they be put in a worse position than their constituents? There is only one reason and that is that we are afraid they will reproach us for doing this at an inappropriate time. We shall have a General Election within a few months and when it comes a lot of Members will not return here again; they are giving up. Many of them will be found in difficult circumstances. We are devising this so that our friends shall have protection after the next Election. We are all friends here and I hope we do not always think of each other in terms of political opponents or that one's £ 12 is going to help a Conservative, a Socialist or a Communist. I am certain we should not be fair to our constituents if we imposed on ourselves a charge that we did not impose on them. I demand that Members should be treated the same as any other citizen and what the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) is producing should be neither better nor worse for our constituents.

4.7 a.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I find some difficulty in believing that the exemption will cause no loss to public revenue. If you create a fund and provide that the income shall be free of Income Tax, surely there must be a loss? It seems that the exemption is justified on the ground that this is a charitable fund. I think that is a mistaken view. I do not see how it can be charitable, because a charity ceases to become a charity when it becomes compulsory.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 52.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Marshall, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mathers, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hayday, A.
Maxton, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Montague, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Stephen, C.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Higgs, W. F.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hollins, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.


Isaacs, G. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Jagger, J.
Pearson, A.
Tomlinson, G.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Petherick, M.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


John, W.
Poole, C. C.
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.
Watson, W. McL.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Welsh, J. C.


Kirkwood, D.
Procter, Major H. A,
Westwood, J.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Lawson, J. J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leonard, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wilmot, John


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Lunn, W.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.



Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sexton, T. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES — 


McEntee, V. La T.
Shinwell, E.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Maclean, N.
Silverman, S. S.
Pownall and Sir Francis


Magnay, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Fremantle.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simpson, F. B.





NOES


Acland-Troyte, Ll.-Col. G. J.
Emery, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fleming, E. L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M. 


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Bracken, B.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hambro, A. V.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hepworth, J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Holdsworth, H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Butcher, H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A, L. (Hull)


Cartland, J. R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Wragg, H.


Critchley, A.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, O.
York, C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.



Duggan, H. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES 


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Mr. Keeling and Mr. Hely-Hutchinson.


Eastwood, J. F.
Macquisten, F. A.



Eckersley, P. T.
Marsden, Commander A.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.17 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: On the Question that the Clause stand part, there are one or two points to which I wish to call attention. The Clause provides that the Fund is to be maintained by contributions from Members of Parliament. It seems to me that this liability to contribute is one which should not be put on Members of Parliament. I suggest that for this reason: We in this House have no power to co-opt Members. We are not responsible as to who comes here. We cannot get rid of anybody whom we dislike. It may happen that some Member is very generally liked by his political opponents as well as by those who think with him, and yet we can do nothing to

ensure at the next election that he will be returned again. It may be that, on the contrary, a Member may be very generally disliked, and yet there is nothing that we can do to prevent his return at the next election. Therefore it seems to me that we have no responsibility for who comes here or how long any individual stays. It is absurd that the financial burden should be placed upon us, arising from the length of time that particular Members may remain here. I can quite imagine that there are other people upon whom that burden might fairly be placed. If it was thought desirable, it might be argued with perfect justice that the constituencies in question should find the money. After all, they are the people who send the man here over a long period of years and who are responsible for him. It might equally be argued with considerable justice in some cases


that the burden should be supported by the particular interests which a Member has represented in this House. It might be a trade union, or an industry, or an association of employers. These might, I suggest, in many cases fairly be asked to bear the burden. Also it might be argued that the burden is one which should fall on the State as a whole. Hon. Members are in a sense public servants, and if they grow old in the public service of the State, they should be entitled to look to the State for some support if they need it. But I cannot see that there is any reason whatever why the burden should be placed upon Members of Parliament to subscribe to this Fund.
The second point to which I should like to draw attention is the question as to whether the contribution, if it is to be made by Members of Parliament, should be made under compulsion or voluntarily. This Clause says that they should be compelled to subscribe to this Fund. I suppose, with the possible exception of the winner of a football pool, there is no one who gets more applications for charitable subscriptions in the course of a year than the average Member of Parliament. There are no doubt many Members of the House who subscribe to a considerable proportion of the charities they are asked to support. Even if that may be found to be somewhat burdensome, it is at least alleviated in this way, that any hon. Member can choose whether he will or will not subscribe to a given charity. Now this Fund is a charity. No one under the Bill has any right to a pension or to a grant of any kind. It is a charity, and I must confess that to me the idea of a compulsory contribution to a charity is rather like the idea of a forced loan — a contradiction in terms. It is not a proceeding which is worthy of the traditions of this House or which is consonant with the system of government under which we live.
It is true that on the Second Reading the Prime Minister made a point that if contributions were voluntary, it would not do. He seemed to think we would not get the money. That does not seem to me to argue any confidence in the desirability of the Fund or in the reasonableness of the objects for which it is founded. The Prime Minister went on to say that unless you knew for certain what the income of the Fund was going to be, you would make the task of the trustees who had to

administer it almost impossible. That is an extraordinary statement to make. There are plenty of charities which are quite uncertain what their income is going to be — charities which depend on voluntary contributions — and I cannot see that that is the serious objection that the Prime Minister sought to persuade us that it was. There are different opinions in this House about the scheme. Many think it is a good scheme. I have no doubt that if it were voluntary, many would gladly subscribe to it. If it were voluntary and it were found to work well, more might come in under a good voluntary scheme than under a compulsory levy.
There is another practical objection to this levy being compulsory, apart from the objection in principle. The sum of £ 12 is to be taken from a Member's salary. It is true that to many hon. Members, from the financial point of view, that is not a matter of importance. It is equally true that to many hon. Members that £ 12 represents an important sum. No doubt among those there are some who would say to themselves, "We may shortly hope to qualify for a pension, and although it is hard to give up £ 12 a year for a time, we shall in the long run profit by it". But there must be many hon. Members who have no reasonable expectation of ever drawing anything out of the Fund, and who yet have to bear what to them is the considerable burden of £ 12 a year. I say that that is an unreasonable burden to put upon them, and I, for one, am not prepared to vote for it.

4.29 a.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: I should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would elucidate the consequences of one decision made to-night in regard to the first Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), proposing to extend the scheme to children of ex-Members of the House who come within the pension scheme. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the Amendment, indicated that in his view a word should be inserted on the Report stage which would confine such assistance to orphan children and that the matter would be dealt with at that stage of the Bill. However, when the question was put, there were no dissentient voices, and those words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend have been inserted


in the Bill. I should be grateful if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give us some indication of what we have really-done in extending the number of prospective applicants whom we may find coming for assistance under this scheme. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that a great number of the children for whom we have now provided are between the ages of40 and 50. Members who retire from the House at the age of 70 will leave behind them two or three children between the ages of 40 and 50. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the haste of the party opposite to get this Bill, whether we have now made it essential that adults who have never come within 100 miles of the Palace of Westminster can appear before the trustees so as to benefit by this money. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would confirm my suspicions and also if the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who appears to me to be in semi-charge of the Bill, can assist me, for the Division lists will show that this Bill has been hastily pressed through.

4.33 a.m.

Mr. Petherick: This Clause, I think, is the one Clause which is the essential one of the Bill. I had intended to make a Second Reading speech on this Clause, or so near thereunto as I could safely get under your vigilant eye, Colonel Clifton Brown, but owing to the lateness of the hour I propose to concentrate on one or two points. I look on this Clause as being by far the most important Clause in the Bill as it at present stands. For the purpose of this Bill, you must either look upon the House of Commons as an institution of State — and, as an institution of State, it is the duty of the State to provide for the wives and children — or, on the other hand, you can look upon it as a sort of club, and, if you look upon it in the latter sense, the proposal seems to me to be rather absurd. Of course, it is a club which consists, not of an ordinary number of friends, but of five political parties which are sent here very bitterly opposed to one another. If you look at it from the latter point of view, it does seem rather foolish to put through a Bill containing a Clause such as this, which would pledge Members of all parties to give pensions to Members of other parties.
I am not making a party point on this, but there is one point which has not been mentioned by anybody. I am very surprised that no lady Member of the House has raised it. I cannot see any lady Member actually on the Floor of the House at the present time [Interruption.]. There is one present, but technically she is outside the House, although physically she is in it. Under the Clause a fund will be set up for the purpose of enabling grants to be made to all the wives and children of persons who have been Members of the House of Commons. For quite a considerable period now we have had lady Members of the House, and no mention is made of widowers, and it does seem to me possible that a lady Member may have a husband who is indigent or old and who is entirely dependent on her for bringing the money into the house. This is a perfectly serious point. If there are equal rights for men and women, we have to consider this point. I have looked for an interpretation Clause in this Bill, but I have not found it, although we have them in other Measures. In some agricultural Acts and in some measures for dealing with our dumb friends we find in the interpretation clause that "horse" includes "mare." I should be very interested to find out whether a widow includes a widower, and I think we ought to look into this matter before the Report stage. We have a Member who is going to be married next week. It may be that a lady who marries dies after a period when she has been a Member of the House for 10 years, and her husband is left entirely destitute. I believe that this matter should be considered, and I hope those who are responsible for the Bill will look into it.

4.38 a.m.

Mr. York: I have not wasted any time to-night, and, therefore, I can claim to say a few words at this hour. I would point out that, being a countryman, this is the time at which we normally rise and start out to work. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has raised a very interesting point which has escaped notice up to now. There is a further point which has not been dealt with in the Bill and which might cause great hardship, and that is the case of the mothers and fathers of Members of Parliament. (Laughter.)Hon. Members may laugh, but it is just as serious for a mother as


for a wife. I think the mother and father should be looked after by this House as well as the wives and children, who have already been mentioned. The Clause does not mention them now, but I hope it may possibly be extended in the future. My main objection to this Clause, as indeed to the whole Bill, is the fact that we are being reduced, or elevated, if you like, to the position of civil servants. I must admit that for all the financial benefits that I get out of my job as a Member of Parliament, I would infinitely prefer to be a civil servant, but I am here, and I hope that my main objective will always be, as it has been in the past, to benefit the public service. Therefore, I feel it a great blow that I should be asked to support a Measure such as this Bill, which reduces my amateur status. I sugest that the whole of this Clause does nothing but upset the status of Members of Parliament, and that it should not be accepted by this Committee.
There is another point which this Clause brings out, which has not been fully dealt with, and that is in regard to the position in which hon. Members will find themselves when they review their life insurance policies renewable, say, next January. If this Clause is passed, and the Bill is passed, we shall get to the point when we shall be paying out £ 12 each year without any deduction for Income Tax, plus Income Tax on the £ 12, which will presumably be there to greet our penniless old age if we are unfortunate enough to be reduced to penniless circumstances in our later years, and then, at the same time, we shall be asked to make a further drain upon our resources to keep up these insurance polices which we have been paying during the past so many years. I myself would be a sufferer under this particular point.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now getting rather far from the Clause. By the method he is adopting he might make the Debate cover almost anything on earth.

Mr. York: I must apologise. I am afraid I was rather led away by my own thoughts.

Mr. Neil MacLean: They would not take you very far.

Mr. York: That is a matter of opinion. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite have

shown the size of their thoughts by their vocal utterances to-night, I have a little more than they. I believe that this Clause is far too limited, and I implore the Government to withdraw it, or, at any rate, if they will not withdraw it, to allow their friends on the opposite side of the Committee really to express their own opinions. It has produced nothing but rancour and a certain degree of bitterness, with a great deal of rudeness, which I, as a young Member, have been very shocked to hear. I did not think it was possible to hear such language as was addressed to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), and it has all resulted from the Government trying to force down the throats of their own loyal supporters a Clause which they are loath to accept and will fight as long as they possibly can.

4.45 a.m.

Sir G. Fox: I intend to vote against including this Clause in the Bill. The more I listened to the arguments to-night the more convinced I was that it is badly thought out. I cannot help asking, why is this being rushed through? We are now past dawn. We have been sitting all night. The Opposition want this Bill. In the last division 138 voted in favour of the Bill. Of that number only 17 were Government supporters and the rest were members of the Opposition. There were 52 members on this side who went against the Bill.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. Is it in order to analyse the characteristics of those who have participated in divisions, and if so shall we be in order in following this speech by analysing the wealth and other characteristics of those opposing the Bill?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member had better recollect that we are dealing with one Clause. It may be just as well not to make a Second Reading speech.

Sir G. Fox: I will leave that matter and go to another point which has been raised, and that is the reason why widowers are not included in the Bill. When the matter was first mentioned three Lady Members were standing behind the Bar. There is still one there. Perhaps she will come into the House, and we may hear what her views are on this subject. We hear a great deal about


equality and I think it right that widowers should be included in the Bill. As the evening goes on we are adding more commitments to this scheme. We suggested a way of raising more money, a 2 per cent levy on all salaries, but this has been turned down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Another mistake is that Members of the Government in another House are not also to make a contribution. There has been a lot of muddled thinking through the Debate. At midnight we had the Chancellor telling us that every Member should pay the same amount into the Fund. At four o'clock we have the Chancellor telling us that the Members ought to pay different amounts. [Hon. Members: "No."] The Chancellor ought to say that on the Report stage he will move an Amendment to the effect that the amount which comes out of each Member's pocket shall be exactly the same in every case. I do not wish to delay the Committee, or go into the arguments again on that point, but I think it requires very careful consideration before the Report stage. Another thing which one cannot help noticing is the curious silence of the Opposition.

Mr. Pritt: Have you noticed it too?

Sir G. Fox: We have often listened to hon. Members opposite on the inequalities of the means test. They usually give us an all-night sitting about this time of the year, carefully organised to discuss the means test. To-night we have seen a miracle happen.

The Chairman: I seem to recollect having heard this so many times that I must remind the hon. Member of a certain Standing Order against repetition.

Sir G. Fox: I am sorry if I have engaged in any repetition, but I do think it is a curious thing that we should see Members of the Opposition vote in favour of the means test now.

4.50 a.m.

Mr. Raikes: I do not propose to detain the Committee for long. The fact remains that Clause 1, the Clause we are discussing, is the kernal of an extremely important Measure and I regret that we are obliged to take this matter so early in the morning. But I feel bound to put forward certain observations with regard to this Clause. First I want to put a point with regard to Members who do not

receive a salary or do not take it. In the Measure as it stands those Members who do not receive their salaries will have £ 12 deducted.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: On a point of Order. Can we have the invisible man's name?

Mr. Raikes: I can give two answers: the two hon. Members who sit for Fermanagh, both of whom have been Members of this House since 1935.

Mr. Robinson: They have never taken their seats.

Mr. Raikes: The two Members have not taken their seats but if they were to take them they would at once receive all the salaries that have been accruing to them in the course of the last four years.

Mr. Robinson: No.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Have the two hon. Members for Fermanagh much to do with the question whether the Clause stands part of the Bill or not?

The Chairman: That is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Raikes: I was pointing out that hon. Members who do not take their salary have £ 12 deducted from their salaries. I am trying to help the Committee. I suggest that salaries which are not received and which are not taken by hon. Members could be placed in the Fund. This could easily be done and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider that. It would undoubtedly swell the Fund and at not one penny cost to anyone. That suggestion is merely made for the purpose of making the Fund larger. I am opposed to the principle, but if we are to have it I do believe in getting as much money as we can reasonably get into the Fund.
There is a further point, and that is that under any form of insurance scheme no one is expected to contribute to the scheme unless he has some form of ascertainable benefit. It appears, as we are today, that if any Member is in receipt of a substantial pension paid from public funds he would be unable in any circumstances to receive any more than if he retired from Parliament under the Bill. Before resuming my seat I must enter one caveat against what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). He suggested that it was a great mistake that under Clause 1 you


could not have this matter done on a voluntary basis by Members. I am quite convinced that if you are to have a scheme of this character contributed to by hon. Members for pensions as a whole, you cannot make that a voluntary scheme for the reason that, although it is invidious, it would be even more invidious if hon. Members had to decide voluntarily whether they paid £ 12 or not. I am sure they all would, but if anyone was in a difficulty and did not pay it would put him under an extremely invidious scheme. You must have a compulsory scheme.
In conclusion I make an appeal to hon. Members opposite. I see the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) on the front bench. I have always listened to him on grave matters with deep attention. I hoped that since the party opposite has made no contribution to the important question of Clause 1, he would help us just a little.

4.55 a.m.

Sir P. Colfox: I am very grateful to hon. Members opposite for their very kind welcome. I look upon this Clause 1 as the worst Clause in an extremely bad Bill. It contains a very great number of points which are extremely questionable, but at this late period on Tuesday's sitting — [Hon. Members: "Wednesday's."] At this late period of Wednesday's sitting I am sure hon. Members would not wish me to animadvert on the evil qualities of the Clause, but there are two points in particular about which I believe we are entitled to have some information. The most important point is the finance of the thing. I am not a mathematician and actuarial calculations are a long way beyond me, though they are certainly not beyond the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers. But why is it, I should like to know, that the finance of this scheme embodied in Clause 1, differs so radically from the finance of the corresponding scheme in France? Under our scheme, as contained in the Bill, every Member of Parliament is to be required to pay £ 12 annually, and then, after ten years minimum qualifying period and at a minimum age of 60, a very limited number of people, subject to a rigid means test, will be entitled to receive an exiguous pension. [Hon. Members: "No."] Well, they will be entitled to apply, and then, if they pass a very rigid means test, they will be

entitled to pension, if there is money in the kitty. Under the French scheme, however, the contribution will be approximately the same, although it is to-be paid out of a very considerably less salary and then a pension will be the right of every member at the minimum age of 55, as compared with our minimum age of 60, after a qualifying period of eight years service, compared with our ten years.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is obviously getting much beyond Clause 1.

Sir P. Colfox: My point in going into details of the French scheme is really to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain the basis on which the actuarial calculations embodied in Clause 1 have been arrived at, because they differ so very widely from the results of what must, after all, have been a very similar actuarial calculation in the case of the French scheme.

The Chairman: The hon. Member may have his opinions as to what is the meaning of the actuarial calculations, but I do not think that matter arises on Clause 1.

Sir P. Colfox: If I may explain my meaning, there is, of course, no actuarial calculation in Clause 1, but the Clause must have been based on actuarial calculations.

The Chairman: I am afraid I must make my meaning a little clearer than that of the hon. Member, and that is that I regard his speech as quite irrelevant.

Sir P. Colfox: In that case, of course, I will bow to your Ruling and leave that point. There is another point of considerable substance which I should like to bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Earlier in the course of the debate, sometime last evening, we were discussing the question whether the contributions payable by Members should be at a flat rate or at a percentage rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer upheld the argument that it should be at a flat rate because he said it was necessary that every Member should pay the same amount. Later in our discussions he grudgingly admitted that owing to the operation of the Income Tax laws and the laws relating to Surtax, the effect of this Clause and the effect of taking from each Member a flat rate sum of £ 12


would be that varying sums would, in fact, be taken from different Members. What I want to ask him is whether he would be prepared at a subsequent stage in this Bill to insert an Amendment to the effect that, taking into account the operation of the laws relating to Surtax and Income Tax, a definite sum — £ 12, if you like or some other similar sum —shall be inserted, so that, in fact, each Member will pay the same, although the amount which reaches the Fund will not be the exactly the same number of pounds per Member? I hope I have made my point clear. It is rather a difficult one.

Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me? I have followed his reasoning as closely as I could; it is a little bit loose, I admit, but could he explain what he means by "£ 12 or some similar sum "?

Sir P. Colfox: I think I made it reasonably clear.

Mr. Bracken: The intervention has interrupted the hon. Member's most interesting argument. Could he repeat it all over again?

Sir P. Colfox: The point is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it is of great importance that each Member should pay the same amount, by which I take it, in logic at any rate, he should mean that each Member should have in his pocket to spend out of his own resources the same amount less than he would otherwise have had. Let me, for the sake of clarity, describe that amount as X pounds. Then it would not be extremely difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his able mathematical advisers to devise a Clause under which each Member would be mulcted of X pounds. That does not mean that in the case of every Member exactly the same amount would reach the pool, because the X pounds would in each case be subject to the correction necessitated by the operation of the Income Tax and Surtax laws.

Mr. Braithwaite: Does not the hon. Member think it would be setting an entirely undesirable precedent in the Income Tax and Surtax laws if such a provision were inserted?

Sir P. Colfox: No, I do not agree, because this would not be any alteration in the Income Tax and Surtax laws at

all. We are, in fact, making an alteration in the Income Tax laws by this Subsection (4). I agree that that is deplorable, but I was not proposing to touch on that because already the time is getting on. The proposal I was in course of making and endeavouring to illustrate would, of course, not be any departure whatever from the existing law, and it would, I suggest, make for much desirable equity and justice, because it would embody the principle laid down by no less an authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, namely, equality of sacrifice as between one Member and another. Therefore, I would ask him if he would kindly consider the suggestion. I hope he will give the undertaking that at a subsequent stage in the discussion of this Bill he will himself move a suitable amendment to carry that idea into effect.

5.11 a.m.

Mr. Mitchell: After the learned statement from the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Sir P. Colfox) I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to what I regard as a much more important matter. I would direct attention to the wording of the Clause which says "and to the widows of." It clearly suggests that in the case of a deceased Member more than one widow might be benefited by this scheme. I suggest that, while nothing is done for the widower, you might have more than one dependant of a deceased Member. We know the excellent work and assiduous attendance in this House of the lady Members and it seems to me there is no reason at all for excluding a widower. If we are going to extend the benefits of this Act, as we have done, the Clause could be further improved if in the case of Members whose sons may have predeceased them — there might be grandchildren — something might be done for them. I would like to see the trustees given the widest powers possible to render assistance. We all know that some Members live to a ripe old age. There are sometimes criticisms in the press that most Members of the House are old men. I do not think that is altogether true. It is clear that many Members have grandchildren. It is equally clear that in some cases they will outlive their children and have grandchildren dependent upon them. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will not consider giving wider


powers to the trustees, who would be people of great ability and wise administrators. Why cramp the scheme? We are now committed to a fairly wide scheme. I submit that we could well improve the ambit of the scheme by giving the trustees greater and wider powers.

Mr. Crossley: Before the Question is put, surely we are to have a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There are a great many points. We feel we are at least entitled to a reply upon them.

5.13 a.m.

Mr. Holmes: The difficulty which I have in supporting this Clause is that it is calling for a compulsory premium without any guarantee of benefit. A Member of Parliament gets £ 600 a year, and he is now being asked to give £ 12 out of it. May I take for comparison the case say of a factory employè receiving £ 300 a year, or £ 6 a week. Every employè in the factory is asked to pay £6 a year, equal to 2s. 6d. a week, if he is receiving that wage. When he is asked to pay it he says "What am I going to get?" and the reply is "Nothing is guaranteed." If he falls into ill-health, nothing is guaranteed; if he dies, nothing is guaranteed. Application may be made to a committee, but nothing is assured. In such a case, I have no hesitation in saying that no trade union would agree to any such scheme on behalf of those who were to subscribe to it. Those of us opposing the Bill may be in a minority. We have the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Patronage Secretary against us. We have Gog and Magog sitting there and we have the Band of Hope sitting opposite. Well, we have done our best to oppose the Bill. We realise we are up against irresistible forces.

5.18 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: The Clause has been discussed from almost every conceivable point of view. The debate has been interesting and instructive. I cannot hope to deal with every point mentioned. Some of them have been discussed on the Amendment. I have been asked a question with regard to the ultimate shape of the provision for the benefit of children. I think it was the intention of the mover and supporters of that Amendment that

it should apply to orphan children. I should hope before the Report Stage of the Bill to be able to put down an Amendment to explain that it would be a provision for orphan children who have lost their father who had been a Member of the House and for their mother also. There would have to be limitations with regard to age — say 16 years. I should have thought that the general plan would be to carry on the provision made for the mother and apply it on behalf of the children. That is the kind of scheme which it appears to me might be the subject of decision by the House, and before the Report Stage I will undertake to see that it is put down in proper form.
It has been suggested that there is some inconsistency in my explanation of the Clause. I do not think I have been inconsistent. What I emphasise is that it seems to me the contribution should be a level and equal contribution from everyone of us. The Fund would consist of 615 times twelve. A wholly different question is the one affecting the change in Sub-section (4) as to whether each generally will make the same contribution in respect of Income Tax and Surtax. People pay Income Tax and Surtax according to the size of their income and I do not see any inconsistency. I say, in conclusion, that I have thoroughly grasped the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset(Sir P. Colfox), and I clearly appreciated what he was proposing.

Mr. Bracken: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down will he address himself to the point regarding widowers? Is there any provision for a widower?

Sir J. Simon: There is not one at present. It is open to anyone to put down an Amendment on the Report stage. I do not think it is necessary to do so, and I think it would be an excellent idea to leave the Bill as it is unless there is a strong and united demand from the lady Members.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 47.

Division No. 260.]
AYES.
[5.23 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pearson, A.


Adam son, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pritt, D. N.


Allan, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Groves, T. E.
Reed, A. C, (Exeter)


Amman, C. G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R, (Wrexham)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hayday, A.
Sexton. T. M.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Shinwell, E.


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Silverman, S. S.


Broad, F. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A,
Isaacs, G. A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cary, R. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
John, W.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghl'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Collindridge, F.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorneycroft, G. E, P.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J.J. 
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Lea, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. 'Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobbie, W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wolsh, J. C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Eckersley, P. T.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ede, J. C.
Magnay, T.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edge, Sir W.
Margesson, Cant. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Wilmot, John


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maxton J
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Frankel, D.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Don caster)



Gardner, B. W.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. — 


Garro Jones, G. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Pownall and Sir Francis


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
Fremantle.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parkinson, J. A.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchell. H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Findlay, Sir E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bracken, B.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hambro, A. V.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Higgs, W. F.
Wakefield, W. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Wragg, H.


Critchley, A.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
York, C.


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, O.



Crowder, J. F. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. — 


Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.
Mr. Hely-Hutchinson and Mr. Raikes


Duncan, J, A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

5.30 a.m.

Sir P. Colfox: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so because I feel it is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should be given an opportunity —

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member has risen to move the Motion,

and I propose to put the Question forthwith.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 131.

Division No. 261.]
AYES.
[5.32 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Eastwood, J. F.
Petherick, M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Findlay, Sir E.
Procter, Major H. A.


Allan, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Flaming, E. L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bracken, B.
Hambro, A. V.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Higgs, W. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holmes, J. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Butcher, H. W.
Jonas, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Ward, Irena M. B. (Wallsend)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Wragg, H.


Critchley, A.
Lewis, O.
York, C.


Crossley, A. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.



Crowder, J. F. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— 


Duggan, H. J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Mr. Hely-Hutchinson and


Duncan, J.A. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sir Gifford Fox.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pearson, A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V- (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Price, M. P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hayday, A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton, T. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A- (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cary, R. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Collindridge, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G
Lee, F.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, [...]. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Dugdale, Captain T, L.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McKie, J. H.
Walsh, J. C.


Eckersley P. T.
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Magnay, T.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edge, Sir W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maxton, J.
Wilmot, John


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
Pownall and Sir Francis


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parkinson, J. A.
Fremantle.

Clause 2.— (Trustees of the Fund.)

Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.40 a.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I want to ask one question. There is power to appoint a public trustee and I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if a public trustee is appointed, he will not have to

be remunerated and whether it is not necessary to have some provision to empower the trustees to remunerate the public trustee?

Mr. Cartland: There are one or two questions I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it is a little undesirable, in dealing with a purely House of Commons matter, that it is necessary to bring in a public trustee.


But I think there are difficulties, and probably the public trustee must be appointed. There are three questions. Firstly, with regard to the appointment of the trustees, I imagine there will be some arrangement on an all-party basis. I should like to know how the appointments are to be made. Is it to be entirely from the front benches or are the back-benchers to be appointed? If so, how are they to be appointed? There are in this House representatives of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again I see difficulties arising if all the trustees should be English. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr Batey) raised the question yesterday with regard to the appointment of two Scottish Members to the Ministry of Health. It would be undesirable if there should be questions as to why there were no Scotsman or Welshmen acting for the Fund. If the Chancellor can answer I shall be very much obliged.

5.43 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: There seems to be a large number of points.

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Lieut-Colonel Acland-Troyte: If the hon. Members keep quiet they will be able to hear. Hon. Members opposite have taken no part in the Debate but have done what they have been told by the Whips. There seem to be some appointments in this Clause which require careful explanation. I want to know how people are going to be removed, what qualifications they must have and for what reason they may be likely to be removed. In subsection (2) it says that the trustees shall not be more than seven in number. In view of the fact that they now have to consider a larger number of persons than was the case under the original plan, it is doubtful whether seven will be enough, as we have to consider the orphans and the widows. I think it would be necessary to have a woman trustee and I think we should try to make sure that one of the lady Members is a trustee. I see it is provided that the public trustee or a corporation may be appointed. There seems to be no way of removing the public trustee or the corporation. It is provided that trustees may make directions whether other trustees are there or not, but surely that is undesirable. I hope the Chancellor will give an explanation.

5.46 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: With the permission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I should like to draw his attention to one or two points. I take it that the intention was that the managing trustees should be a continuing body and that if one dropped out another would take his place. I wonder if he appreciates the fact that as the Bill is drafted all managing trustees will be swept away by the Dissolution of Parliament. Sub-section (3) says that no person shall be appointed to be a managing trustee unless he is a Member of the House of Commons and on ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons a managing trustee shall vacate his office. On the dissolution of Parliament we all cease to be Members of the House of Commons and therefore all managing trustees will be swept away by the Dissolution. During the period of the election for such time as would elapse until the new Parliament was appointed and until fresh trustees were appointed there would be none at all. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciate that and see any objection to it?

5.48 a.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am sure the Committee are indebted to the Hon. Member for drawing our attention to this matter. It is not difficult to envisage one trustee being swept away by the dissolution. There might be a situation in which a managing trustee would appear as a mendicant before another trustee after the Dissolution. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) referred to the appointment of trustees. I gather that they will be appointed in much the same way as the Kitchen Committee, and no doubt they will perform their functions with the same efficiency with which at this moment the Committee are performing during this sitting. He also raised the question of the geographical areas which will have to be covered. We are indebted to the fact that there are private Members so vigilant in the study of complicated Bills as my hon. Friend. I had not noticed this point. We must examine the remaining sub-sections with even closer scrutiny. The question of providing representatives of the various areas brings us to an even more important matter. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have not put down an Amendment to Clause 2 to safeguard the position of applicants. Has it occurred to them that


unless we insert the necessary words it is possible that all applicants — ex-Members, widows, old parents, children — who are now being brought within the scope of this Measure may have to come from places like London or Northern Ireland?
My hon. Friend has performed a great service in pointing this out. I am sorry hon. Gentlemen opposite have not raised this question themselves. They are supposed to be helping to shape this Bill as private Members — from the Welsh valleys as well. I hope we shall see to it that there is inserted in the machinery of this important Measure some method by which applicants in far distant areas such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, can attend before local trustees in those areas without having to incur heavy travelling expenses.

Mr. John Morgan: May I ask one question? If hon. Members on this side of the House had behaved in regard to the Military Training Bill in the way that hon. Members opposite are behaving over this Bill, what would they have said of us?

Mr. Braithwaite: This is entirely irrelevant. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has put a question to me, but after studying this Clause I can find no reference in it to military service. It would not be in order to pursue that subject and all of us are anxious to keep within the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Morgan: I suggest that is not true.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Sir G. Fox: On a point of Order. Is that expression of the hon. Member Parliamentary?

The Chairman: I think, in all the circumstances of the case, there is no reason why I should take any notice of it. Though different words may mean the same thing and one may be disorderly and another not so. Such things must be judged according to the circumstances of the time.

Mr. Braithwaite: I took no notice of the interjection. I realized that the hon. Member imagined himself at a Trades Union Congress rather than in this honourable House. It is the duty of private Members in this House to do what they can to shape Bills, whether

of national importance or for the private advantage of hon. Members of this House.

5.55 a.m.

Sir P. Colfox: I find myself in rather a difficulty because my principal objection to Clause 2 is the appointment of the Public Trustee, which occurs in Sub-section (2), to be custodian Trustee, but my reason for that objection occurs in Clause 3. Of course, I recognize that it would not be in Order if I were to discuss Clause 3 now, and so I can only explain very briefly my principal objection on Clause 2. It is this, that if the Public Trustee is appointed custodian Trustee, as he would be under Clause 2 in its present form, he would be entitled to charge fees for his custodianship. It seems to me that that would be an unnecessary expense to throw upon this House of Commons Members Fund. I should have thought that the right person to be custodian Trustee of this Fund would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It is true, of course, that Chancellors come and go, but the office carries on for ever and I should have thought that it would be quite simple to arrange that the Chancellor of the Exchequer — without referring to any individual occupant of that office — should be appointed custodian Trustee and then the other Trustees would manage the affairs of the Trust and carry on. After all, the custodian Trustee is not going to take any share in the management of the Fund or be asked to attend the meetings of the trustees or to give his opinion as to which applicant for pension is suitable, and so on. All he has to do is to be custodian Trustee which, I suppose, would not involve any arduous work.
Of course, we all know that any Chancellor of the Exchequer — I am not being in any sense personal — must by the very fact of holding that office be a very busy man, and I would not wish to impose on him any extra duties of an arduous character, but, after all, he is the man to whom we, as Members of Parliament, look in all matter;; of finance and suchlike things, and it seems to me that this purely domestic Fund might be handed over to, shall I say, the domestic curator of the fund, namely the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In doing so we should be saving the Fund the fees which the Public Trustee would charge, because, obviously.


the Chancellor of the Exchequer would in this matter act in an honorary capacity and that would be an advantage from all points of view.

Sir J. Mellor: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were appointed custodian Trustee, would not that throw the cost of management on to public funds?

Sir P. Colfox: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to undertake this work personally in his own time and in an honorary capacity, then clearly that would be placing no charge on public funds. If, on the other hand, the work was done in his office by his subordinates who, of course, are servants of the Crown, that is a different point. It is a point on which no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has now gone to get advice. Time is getting on and any other remarks on this Clause are best postponed until, if ever that be the case, the Bill is given a Third Reading. Therefore I want to ask the Chancellor only whether he could not see his way to undertake the custodian Trusteeship himself?

6.0 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: There is first the question with regard to the remuneration of the Public Trustee as it arises in the Bill. There is no need for a Financial Resolution for such a purpose. Whatever remuneration there is will not come out of public funds but will come out of the Fund which the trustees will administer. I was asked whether, as between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the election of a new one, there would be no trustee except the custodian trustee. That is so. But it seems right that the scheme should be one in which the managing trustees should be Members of the House of Commons. It is a domestic arrangement in which Members are doing something fraternally. There would be only a few weeks before the assembly of the new Parliament, and in the interval it is provided by Sub-section (6) of Clause 2 that all directions of the managing trustees are to continue and operate even if there be no managing trustees for a period. There will be no difficulty.
The Committee see that by Sub-section (1) the trustees are to be appointed by and

Division No. 262.]
AYES.
[6.7 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) 
Albery, Sir Irving 
Ammon, C. G.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) 
Aske, Sir R. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Barnes, A. J.

may be removed by order of the House of Commons. It is the same procedure as that for appointing committees. There will be communications between what are called "the usual channels" and possibly additional consultation, and I should hope that by common consent we should arrive at a list, and then there would be a Motion that this list of Members should constitute the managing trustees. Anyone could move an amendment to the list so long as the Amendment kept within the maximum number.

6.4 a.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I have found myself in complete disagreement with the eloquent plea that was made that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be appointed as custodian trustee. I found myself rather in agreement with the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). I think there is a risk that the suggestion to which I have referred might incur some charge on public funds. It would be unsuitable to have someone as custodian trustee who would be so closely identified with any political party. I know, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would discharge the duties in an impartial manner, but I do not think it is a suitable position for any Member of the Government in being. It would be much better if Mr. Speaker could be appointed as a custodian trustee. He occupies a unique position in the House and would be the most suitable person to be custodian trustee. It has been pointed out that the duties would not be enormous, would not involve attending many committee meetings and would not impinge unduly on his time. Should Mr. Speaker be unable to attend meetings, an able substitute might be found in the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Committees. I make that suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the hope that he may be able to see his way on the Report stage of the Bill to introduce an Amendment embodying this proposal.

Question put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 40.

Barr, J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Price, M. P.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bevan, A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Richards, R, (Wrexham)


Bossom, A. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton. T. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel A. P.
Shinwell, E.


Cape, T.
Hollins, A.
Silverman, S. S.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Jagger, J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cary, R. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
John, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B, Lees- (K'ly)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Collindridge, F.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Col man, N. C. D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Eckersley, P. T.
McKie, J. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edge, Sir W.
Magnay, T.
Welsh, J C


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Wilmot, John


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Oliver, G. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Graham, D M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pearson, A.
Lieut. Colonel Sir Assheton


Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.
Pownall and Sir Francis


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Poole, C. C.
Fremantle.


Groves, T. E.






NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Procter, Major H. A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hambro, A. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Holmes, J.S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Horsbrugh, Florence
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Critchley, A.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Wragg, H.


Crossley, A, C.
Lewis, O.
York, C.


Crowder, J. F. E
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.



Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Sir Gifford Fox and Mr. Hely-Hutchinson.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Fleming, E. L.
Petherick, M.

Clause 3.— (Supplementary provisions.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.14 a.m.

Sir A. Southby: I do not think hon. Members like any more than I like the suggestion that in order to provide a fund for pensions, there should be any question of touting round for some generously-minded person to contribute to the fund. There is a provision in the Bill that there should be powers for the reception of donations, but these should

be limited to Members or ex-Members, so that there can be no question of some large benefactor or some rich man from outside who, for one purpose or another, gives a large sum of money towards the Members Pension Fund. I suggest that on the Report stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider whether it would not be in the interest of the dignity of this House that gifts should be received only from people who have served in this House or in another place.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Holmes: May I venture to suggest that, the Committee having adequately


debated this Bill for the time being, and as we are all getting tired — [Interruption.] I quite agree with the hon. Members opposite that they are not tired, because they have done no work. [Interruption.] I would like to ask your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

6.16 a.m.

Sir P. Colfox: On that Motion to report Progress —

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not accept the Motion.

Sir P. Colfox: On the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, I naturally hesitate at this time of the morning to intervene again. The Government, however, have not moved to report progress, considering the friendly spirit in which the proceedings have been conducted all night. There is a point that I would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the bottom of page 3 there is a provision that any property given, devised, or bequeathed to the Fund, except money and securities, shall be realised. The provisions of this Bill preclude the investment of the accumulation of the Fund in real estate or in mortgages on real property. I am not an expert, but I know that there are people who at the present time fancy the idea of such things for investment. I should very much like to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view on the value of real property as an investment for the Members Fund at the present time, because I know that in the state of the world today, which, of course, none of us can do other than regret, there are many folk who think that such a proposal is the best way of disposing of this money.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: Somebody ought to choke him.

Sir P. Colfox: It is curious what gross rudeness and animality come from the other side, together with the loud noises that pass for humour. When I was interrupted, I was about to conclude my remarks, and to ask the Chancellor if he would be good enough to give us an opinion on the value of property as an investment at the present time.

6.21 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I should like to ask how much will be the cost of Sub-sections (3) and (4) to the Fund. The Public Trustee has to be paid, but we do not know how he is to be paid, or how much. As a rule the Public Trustee takes over a trust fund and makes a charge of a half per cent. or one per cent. of the value of the trust. What is the capital value of this trust Fund? How much is the annual charge likely to be? In addition, the trustees are to employ officers and servants. We do not know how many there are. There may be dozens of them. How much will it cost, and by how much will the Fund be reduced by this expenditure? I pass to Sub-sections (5) and (6). The Government Actuary and the Comptroller and Auditor-General are employed for this Fund. We are told that this scheme is to cause no expenditure at all on public funds. I always thought the Government Actuary was paid out of public funds, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General also. They are full-time employes of the Government, and if they are to be used to work on this Fund, their pay will be charged on public funds.

6.24 a.m.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I want to ask the Chancellor whether he would reconsider Sub-section (2) of this Clause, relating to property. The trustees may accept any property given, devised, or bequeathed to the Fund by any person, but they shall, as soon as may be, realize any such property. I suggest that the Committee might further consider whether it would really be for the benefit of the Members for whom we are trying to provide if they should fall upon evil times. It seems to me that somebody might bequeath an estate like Chequers with a sum of money for the upkeep, without charge to the Exchequer and without charge to the Fund, in order that the estate might be run for the benefit of the old Members of this House who become ill, perhaps, or penniless, and are still wanting to keep up their corporate spirit. I think it would be of great benefit, particularly to hon. Members opposite, who might like to keep in touch with their friends of old political days. A number of Members on this side of the House with many years service may look forward to promotion to another place. But hon. Members opposite for the most part do not wish to do that.


They might have few friends and relations at home, and it might be a very real benefit to them to be able to look upon such a place as Chequers as a home where they could go and live. I seriously invite my right hon. Friend to give this his consideration, and I assure the Committee that it is no frivolous suggestion.

6.26 a.m.

Sir G. Fox: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform us how much the managing trustees are to be paid? I hope he will answer the points raised on this question, because on the last Clause he did not pay any attention to the points which were raised, and he did not reply at the end of the Debate. Another point that I would like to ask is about Sub-section (2) of this Clause, which says that trustees may accept any property given, devised, or bequeathed by any person to the Fund, but that they shall, as soon as may be, realise any such property other than money or securities, and they are authorised to invest the assets in the Fund. What would be the position if someone left some houses or real property to the Fund, with a special request that it should not be realised? [An HON. MEMBER: "He has woken up."] There is such a noise opposite that I wonder if you, Sir, could protect me from the noises on the other side of the Committee? These interruptions are very disturbing. We are trying to mould and improve this Bill, and all that happens is animal noises from the other side. Not one of the hon. Members opposite will get up. There is a glorious so-called silence. We' have been here 11 hours. They do not get up and talk, but they make a lot of interruptions and make it difficult for our voices to be heard on this side.

6.28 a.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: My hon. Friend has raised a matter of considerable importance. He spoke of the investment of this Fund, or part of it, in property. It is one thing to own real estate or property, but in the times in which we are living there are other considerations. There is very much before the Government the question of the insurance of property in time of emergency against enemy action. The Government has appointed a committee to consider this very grave matter, under the chairmanship of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I suggest

that we cannot properly consider this Clause until that committee has reported. I suggest that consideration of this Bill be not proceeded with until we have a report from this very important committee as to insurance in war-time.

6.29 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: One or two questions have been asked, to which I should give an answer. I was asked how much the managing trustee would be paid. The managing trustees will be Members of the House, and, of course, they will not be paid anything at all. They will render their services, I am sure, very faithfully, and we shall be grateful to them, but their payment will be in our gratitude. As regards the Public Trustee, we do not need to put into an Act of Parliament provisions about the remuneration of the Public Trustee, because that is all in the scales in the Public Trustee Act. The purpose for which Sub-section (3) is inserted is not to provide for remuneration for the Public Trustee, but for remuneration of the corporation entitled by rules made under Section 3, Sub-section (4) of the Public Trustee Act, if that body is substituted as a Public Trustee. I cannot recite the scale of fees, but the hon. Member will probably be aware that there is a scale, and I have no doubt at all that the scale is one that is reasonable to be applied. Payments of this kind do not come out of the taxes or become chargeable on the public. It is a domestic affair. It is one of the expenses taken out of the Fund itself.
I was asked whether it would be possible to invest the Fund in land, in real estate. Another question was, What would happen if anyone were to give real estate to the Fund? I do not think it would be possible, under the Clause, to invest in real estate. I am not prepared to offer an opinion, but as securities which may be bought include any securities in which a trustee may invest, perhaps it may be possible to invest in mortgages under the power conferred by the Trustee Act if it is thought desirable by the Trustee. An hon. Member made an interesting speculation in imagining that there might be offered something like Chequers for the benefit of retired Members. That is rather a high conception. If Chequers were repeated, we should do what we did on the last occasion — have a special Act.

Mr. Wakefield: Can the Chancellor answer the question raised about the Government Actuary and the Comptroller Auditor-General? Although both people are paid out of public funds, it was understood that there should be no charge on public funds in connection with the Bill

Sir J. Simon: I am not informed about the matter at the moment but I will be on the Report stage. I believe the two would be covered out of the Fund.

6.32 a.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I have one point which, I think, is of interest. It is on the wording of Sub-section (2). If property is left to the Fund which is not property in which the trustees are authorised to invest the assets, they have to realise as soon as may be. Is the Chancellor satisfied that they have sufficient power to postpone realisation to enable them to act with reasonable prudence? I am sure no one wishes that potentially valuable property should be left to the Fund, and that by reason of the wording of the Subsection they should have to realise it at a lower price than if they had waited. I hope if there is any doubt that the Chancellor will consider on the Report stage making it quite clear that they have sufficient power to postpone.

Sir J. Simon: That is a very reasonable question, and I will make inquiries about it. I think the provision follows the lines very often laid down in these cases that if trustees accept responsibility for the administration of a trust and find there is property which they cannot hold, it is evident that they must release it and put it in a form within the terms of the trust. I apprehend as a matter of common sense that that means they must have reasonable time to do it. If that were the case, I should think it unlikely that anyone would regard them as guilty of a breach of trust.

6.34 a.m.

Mr. Eastwood: There is one question I should like to put, and that is the use of the words "any person" in Sub-section (2). A question put to the Chancellor was whether that was intended for any person whether he had anything to do with the House or not. The question was whether it could not in any way be limited to persons who are connected with the House.

Sir J. Simon: I think none of us had any doubt as to what was meant by "any person." It meant any past, present or future Member. I should have thought it would be unreasonable to try to limit this, but there may be two opinions, and if anyone wants to raise the point it could be raised on the Report stage.

6.37 a.m.

Mr. York: I do not quite see the point of having a Government actuary in this business. My idea of an actuary is a man who works out the actuarial results of insurance. I think if this were an insurance scheme not only would this be unnecessary, but I would be supporting the Bill and the Clause. It seems as if the only action the Government actuary is to take is to report on the general financial position of the Fund and not upon the aid which it is expected the recipients of the pension will receive. He is merely to report on the financial position of the Fund, and I can only feel this is an unnecessary expense which we would like to avoid.

6.38 a.m.

Mr. Mitchell: We have to recognise in setting up this Fund that this is a very difficult time when values are changing very rapidly and at a time when we are faced with a colossal national expenditure.

Mr. Bracken: Can the hon. Member explain the changes in the Trustee Act since 1925?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, but I must not go into that. Broadly, there are very great changes, for at the moment there is a gigantic scheme of Government borrowing, the biggest ever undertaken in times of peace, and it is perfectly reasonable to fear that that might affect the securities of the trust Fund which are entirely based on the rather narrow scope of this Clause. I feel there is a great deal to be said for the plea put forward by other hon. Members on this side that land has proved to be an extremely steady investment, and for a Fund like this which is going to be created for all time, one welcomes something solid like land. Further, I think in a case of this kind it is most unfortunate that the trustees are specially directed to divest themselves of property. For example, I cannot see why the trustees should be compelled to sell, say,


debentures in perhaps an excellent firm in the steel industry, the tobacco trade, the brewing trade or things like that. I think it is most unfortunate that trustees should be directed to divest themselves of possibly excellent debentures and preference shares in such business — I know there is some prejudice against the brewing trade, so 1 will leave that out — and go into such things as the debentures of railway companies.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now going outside the scope of the Clauses of the Bill. That would be a point on the Third Schedule.

Mr. Mitchell: I will not pursue that point. I hope wider powers will be conferred on the trustees, and that there will be an opportunity on the Schedules to examine in further detail the particular

[Division No. 263.]
AYES.
[6.45 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Greenweed, Rt. Hon. A.
Price, M. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grenfell, D. R.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Groves, T. E.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Ammon, C. G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Burr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Heyday, A.
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Silverman, S. S


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Broad, F. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hollins, A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Butcher, H. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cape, T.
John, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cary, R. A.
Kirkwood, D
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Collindridge, F.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Caiman, N. C. D.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dalton, H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Viant, S. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Day, H.
McKie, J. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Debbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Magnay, T.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Eckersley, P. T.
Marshall, F.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edge, Sir W.
Maxton, J.
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Frankel, D.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. — 


Gardner, B. W.
Paling, W.
Sir Assheton Pownall and Sir Francis Fremantle.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Parkinson, J. A.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Pearson, A.

stocks which trustees are directed to go in for.

6.43 a.m.

Sir J. Mellon: There is one point on Sub-section (7) to which I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It provides that the Government Actuary, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and their respective officers and servants shall treat as confidential all information relating to the making or refusal of grants in particular cases, I am unable to find in the Bill any penalty Clause which would secure the observance of that. Is that accidental or intentional?

Question put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes 134; Noes, 39.

NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Flaming, E. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Allan, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Procter, Major H. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hambro, A. V.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bracken, B.
Higgs, W. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Holmes, J. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Horsbrugh, Florence
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Critchley, A.
Keeling, E. H.
Ward, Irena M. B. (Wallsend)


Crossley, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Wragg, H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lewis, O.
York, C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Eastwood, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sir Gifford Fox and Mr. Hely-Hutchinson.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Clause 4.— (Short title.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.51 a.m.

Sir A. Southby: I have only one point to raise on this Clause. I wish to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that when the subject was first introduced on 7th February the Motion was:
 That this House" approves the recommendations of the Departmental
Committee on Pensions for Members of the House of Commons.
We have gone a long way from that. This is now a Members' Fund. I suggest that to be honest we ought to have stuck to the original title.

The Chairman: I think I must warn hon. Members that there is not much in this Clause.

6.52 a.m.

Mr. Keeling: I have a different point to raise. My suggestion is that before the Report stage the Government should consider in consultation with the drafts-

Division No. 264.]
AYES.
[6.55 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cocks, F. S.
Grenfell, D. R.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Collindridge, F.
Griffith., J. (Llanelly)


Adamson, W. M.
Colman, N. C. O.
Graves, T. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Daggar, G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dalton, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Ammon, C. G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Day, H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dobbie, W.
Hayday, A.


Barnes, A. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Barr, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Eckersley, P. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Ede, J. C.
Hollins, A.


Bevan, A.
Edge, Sir W.
Jagger, J.


Bossom, A. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Broad, F. A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
John, W.


Buchanan, G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Burke, W. A.
Frankel, O.
Kirkwood, O.


Cape, T.
Gardner, B. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Cartland, J. R. K.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lawson, J. J.


Cary, R. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lee, F.


Charleton, H. C.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Leonard, W.


Chater, D.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Logan, D, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, Rt, Han. A.
Lunn, W.

men whether they should not add an apostrophe after the word Members. It is a serious point. Under the Bill the Fund will be contributed to by hon. Members and will be for the benefit of hon. Members and an apostrophe indicative of possession ought to be added.

Sir P. Colfox: There is another point.

The Chairman: I do not think I can permit this Debate to go on. I know of no precedent for debating a Clause of this sort. I think it is out of order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of Order. I want to state the reason why the alternative Title suggested is a bad one.

The Chairman: I do not think this is an occasion on which we can allow the Title of the Bill to be discussed in that way.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 37.

Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Pritt, D. N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Macdonald, G. (lnce)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


McEntee, V. L T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Thurtle, E.


McKie, J. H.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Tinker, J. J.


Maclean, N.
Ritson, J
Tomlinson, G.


Magnay, T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Watkins, F. C.


Marshall, F.
Sexton. T. M.
Walton, W. McL.


Mathers, G.
Shinwell, E.
Walsh, J. C.


Maxton, J.
Silverman, S. S.
Westwood, J.


Montague, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Simpson, F. B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Leas- (K'ly)
Wilmot, John


Paling. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Parkinson, J. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woods, G. 5. (Finsbury)


Pearson, A.
Stephen, C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C,


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Poole, C. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Sir Assheton Pownall and Sir Francis Fremantle.


Price, M. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. C. J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fleming, E. L.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bracken, B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hambro, A. V.
Walter-Smith, Sir J.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Higgs. W. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Butcher, H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Wragg, H.


Critchley, A.
Jonas, Sir H. Haydn (Merieneth)
York, O.


Crossley, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.



Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Duggan, H. J.
Lewis, O.
Sir Gifford Fox and Mr. Hely-Hutchinson.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)



Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchell, H. (Branford and Chiswick)

New Clause. — (Duration of Act.)

This Act shall continue in force until the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines. — [Mr. Lewis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.3 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As the Government Chief Whip and the Socialist party seem in no hurry, I should like to explain this Clause in detail. The Clause provides that this Act shall continue in force until the 30th day of September, 1949, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines. Hon. Members will realise that the purpose of the Clause is to provide a time limit, after which this scheme must be reviewed by Parliament. There are many reasons which I can put forward, but I will select only two of them. First of all this is a novel experiment. Never in our long Parliamentary history have we had anything like this proposal that pensions should be provided for Members of Parliament and not only is the proposal a novel one but it is being forced through this House in the greatest possible hurry. I think the Government Chief Whip will go down to history as the

man who at the time of the greatest national emergency could find no better use to make of the Government time than to bring forward a Bill to provide pensions for ourselves.[Interruption.] This Bill having been introduced is pushed through with only half a day's discussion, and we have to sit up all night to push it through this stage.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member please come to the Clause.

Mr. Lewis: For these reasons it is important that Parliament should retain for itself the right to review this scheme. Our constituents have not been consulted, nobody can say there is any popular mandate for this Bill, and I think many Members have very vague ideas as to how it will work in practice. I submit it is reasonable to ask that within a period of years the matter should be bound to come up for Parliamentary attention by the expiry of the Act. Some hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite may suggest a period of time. I have put this period forward as quite reasonable, but I am not wedded to that period. I suggest that some period, not too short, to cover the normal life of three Parliaments and also not too long, should be inserted in the Bill.

7.6 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: I appreciate the considerations in the mind of my hon. Friend but I hope, nevertheless, the Committee will not be disposed to accept his new Clause for this reason. I hope we shall have a survey of the way in which this scheme works from time to time. That is in fact provided for under Clause 3, which we have already passed, because in Sub-section (5) the actuary is to make a report from time to time which will come before the House of Commons and will present a true picture of how the matter stands. Therefore, if the working of the scheme is shown by the report to need alteration that will be the information that is necessary. Once you have started this scheme, once you have said you are going to establish a fund to give annuities, it is a very serious thing to bring it to an end. Of course we might have to bring it to an end, but it is unlikely in view of the nature of the fund, and having once planned this structure you have really to provide for a continuing service. Of course, if the whole of the financial arrangements for the fund were to come to an end in 10years time it would be a serious matter. I think the right way is to look at the reports of the Government actuary for 10 years. If it became necessary we should have to stop it or alter it. I would warn the Committee that this is a pretty serious thing to do to a fund of this sort.

Mr. Lewis: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Hon. Members: "No."

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

New Clause. — (Act when effective.)

This Act shall not have effect until and unless it is confirmed by an affirmative Resolution of this House in the next Parliament — [Sir A. Gridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.12 a.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think it may be said that to this Clause, at least, no reasonable objection can be taken. What is the need for the haste with which this Bill has been introduced and considered? Parliament

has continued for a great many years without a provision of this kind, and to suggest that we cannot wait another few months is quite idle. If all goes well in the international sphere we may anticipate that in the next few months the country will be faced with a General Election, and as a result of that election many of us may not return here. I am speaking in a corporate capacity. There may possibly be 100 new Members who may be affected by the provisions of this Bill. I think it is only reasonable to suggest that new Members who may comprise one-sixth of the next Parliament, should have the right to say whether they approve of this Bill or not. I should not have put down this new Clause for discussion if I had not thought that the Bill was likely to get a Third Reading. I may say here that I am and always have been wholly in favour of the object and purpose of this Bill from the moment it was introduced. The difference on these Amendments between those who have voted in the other Lobby and my hon. Friends and myself is almost entirely on whether it should be a compulsory or a voluntary scheme.

The Chairman: I am afraid that this Clause is one which I am obliged to rule out of order, because it is contrary to what has already been decided and settled in Clause 1 (3) — "after the 30th day of September, 1939."

7.15 a.m.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I think my hon. Friends who have taken part in the Debate on this Bill, and some who have remained passive, feel perhaps more strongly on this particular Clause than on any other. I do submit that by asking for a postponement of the operation of the Bill until the next Parliament we are not contravening any of the particular operations of the Bill which have been passed by this House.

The Chairman: I am afraid I differ from the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 he will find it states quite clear:
 in respect of any period after the 30th day of September, 1939.
That is a Clause which, after very considerable Debate, was passed, and therefore I do not think that we can now put in a new Clause which would be contradictory to that.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: Might I draw your attention to the words "in respect of" in that Sub-section? It does not say it shall be a year after. It merely says in respect of the period.

The Chairman: That is so; the period commencing from that date.

First Schedule. — (Limitations on payments out of the Fund.)

7.19 a.m.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, to leave out "sixty" and to insert "sixty-five."
I think the reason for making this proposed Amendment will be clear to every Member of the Committee. Those who are entitled throughout the country to pensions under various social Acts we have passed do not draw their pensions until they reach the age of 65. I think their work is just as hard and just as exacting as that of Members of this House, and I see no reason why we should decide that those who do the hard work in our industrial establishments should have to wait until they are 65 while those who have been in the House should be entitled to pensions at 60. I think we should put them both on exactly the same basis.

7.20 a.m.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I think there are many Members between the ages of 60 and 65 who do most valuable work, and if the granting of these pensions at 60 would have the effect of encouraging some hon. Members to retire or make them leave I think the House would be the poorer. I should like to support the Amendment.

7.21 a.m.

Mr. Bracken: I think there is great weight in the Amendment. Consider the present Prime Minister, who took office at the age of 67, and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Would anyone part with his talents and retire him at 60? I can see faces on the Opposition Front Bench looking worried at the idea of 60. I think we should adopt a broad non-party attitude. I myself look forward to the age of 60 and I should feel sorry if it were laid down that people should retire at 60. It would do harm to the senior statesmen who have rendered such great service to the country, and we should lose the services of leaders of

the Opposition who have rendered splendid service to the country. I think 65 should be the minimum age, and I feel that 70 is probably a fine age for them to contemplate retirement.

7.23 a.m.

Mr. Raikes: I hope the Government will resist the Amendment firmly. I have endeavoured to keep an open mind. So far as the 60 to 65 age is concerned, it appears to me that with this benefit which is offered we in this House may age quicker than people in ordinary walks of life. There is a further point, and that is that the whole object of the Measure is to try to get greater efficiency in Parliament.

Mr. Silverman: That is why you are opposing it.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Gentleman must not judge others by his own beliefs. When it comes to reasons perhaps he will permit me to deal with them in my own way. If there is to be efficiency you must have an opportunity of retirement at an age when you may be getting past your best work. There is nothing to prevent hon. Members going on from 60 to 70 or even 80. But if there are cases of men who should retire on approaching 60, from the point of view of efficiency, I think we should be able to grant pensions as early as that.

7.25 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes), but it seems that, at any rate for some time, the funds of this scheme will not be too formidable. If we pension ex-Members at 60 it will mean that ex-Members who are older than that — Members of 65 — will find there are no funds available for them. It is absurd to pretend that a man who is a Member is incapacitated at 60. A man of 60 who has had the advantage of being in this House can easily earn a living by writing, lecturing or speaking, unless he is incapacitated. People age rapidly between 60 and 65, and it seems better for the welfare of Members who may find it necessary to apply for them that pensions should be reserved for a later age, so that people who really require them will be able to get them when they retire.

7.27 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: I should remind the Committee that the Departmental Committee whose report began consideration of this matter, put forward proposals for an age limit of 60. That does not governus but it shows that all calculations made of the contributions necessary have all been founded on 60 being the age. Some hon. Members seemed to imply that we should legislate for people to retire at 60, which would make some of us very unfortunate. But the Bill does not say that everyone who retires at 60 is to get a pension but that people shall not on age grounds be eligible for consideration before 60.
I think it is quite true that service in the House of Commons of Members over

Division No. 265.]
AYES.
[7.30 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Grenfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, 0. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hayday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, K. (Lewisham, W.)
Jagger, J.
Silverman, s. s.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cary, R. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R, W.


Cocks. F. S.
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Collindridge, F.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lucas, Major Sir J.M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Dabble, W.
McKie, J. H.
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. c.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Magnay, T.
Watson, W. McL.


Eckersley, P. T.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Marshall, F.
West wood, J.


Edge, Sir W.
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Montague, F.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Don caster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wilmot, John


Frankel, D.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Neven-spence, Major B. H. H.
Woods, G. s. (Finsbury)


Garro Jonas, G. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Wright. Wing-Commander J.A. O.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parkinson, J. A.
Sir Assheton Pownall and


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pearson, A. Sir Francis Fremantle.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G, J.
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duggan, H. J,


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Butcher, H. W.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Eastwood, J. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Findlay, Sir E.


Bracken, B.
Critchley, A.
Fleming, E. L.

60 in many cases is very valuable. I think we must all have greatly appreciated and noted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has sat here all through the night. There are many cases of politicians being at their best and going on. I would suggest we stick to 60. It is true that an increase would do no harm to the finances of the fund but we cannot help fearing that we might be excluding some cases which might be found to be fully deserving of keep.

Question put, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 36.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Keeling, E. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Law, Ft. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hambro, A. V.
Lewis, O.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heneage,Lieut.-Colonel A P.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Higgs, W. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. — 


Holmes, J. S.
Procter, Major H. A.
Sir Gilford Fox and Mr. Hely-Hutchinson.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Sir I. Albery: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir Dennis, if you are not going to call the Amendment standing in my name, to insert, in page 5, line 23:
'' Provided that the trustees may, in any case where there is no widow to whom a grant would have been payable under this Schedule, make instead a grant for the benefit of any children of the deceased Member.
This is really consequential on the first Amendment which was accepted on Clause 1.

The Chairman: I did not regard this Amendment as made necessary by the Amendment which was made in Clause 1, considering what was said in the Debate which then took place on Clause 1. I exercised my discretion by not selecting it.

Sir I. Albery: I gathered from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was necessary.

7.38 a.m.

Sir A. Southby: I wish to raise a point which has been referred to by another hon. Member, namely, a particular hard case which could not be covered by pension under the Schedule as it exists. I understood the Chancellor to say that he would give consideration to that point between now and the Report stage, and it may be that by juggling round the Subsections of the Schedule the point may be met. I did think some discretion ought to be given to the trustees, who should not be too rigidly bound by the statutory amount of income set out in the First Schedule, and that there might be circumstances disclosed by the applicants which would render it necessary to stretch a point in his or her favour and not to be bound solely by the statutory limit of income. If, between now and the Report stage, the Chancellor could consider some Amendment which would give effect to that so that nobody who was a deserving case would be kept out of pension, I should be very grateful.

7.39 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: There is a small point in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the First Schedule on which I should like to have an assurance from the Chancellor that money paid out to in the case of a married couple to bring their income up to £ 225, and in the case of widows up to £ 125, shall not be subject to Income Tax. In my opinion — and I think the Committee will agree — as the Members will be paying Income Tax before the money goes into the fund, this should not be looked upon as a pension so much as a charitable payment and Income Tax should not be charged against these recipients. I trust we can get an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such is the case.

Mr. Cartland: May I add a word to what the hon. Members for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) said? I think the case could be met if the proviso which refers to paragraph 4 of the First Schedule were to apply to the whole Schedule and not merely to paragraph 4.

Sir P. Colfox: This Schedule is the part of the Bill which deals with payments out of the fund and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why. it is that the benefits which are estimated to accrue are so much less favourable to the pensioners than the corresponding scheme in France. There is no doubt they are much less favourable.

7.42 a.m.

Sir J. Simon: I think the answer is that this scheme is one which depends on contributions and does not rely on subventions from public funds.

Mr. Bracken: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us something about the German scheme? I understand that German Members receive £ 200 a year more than Members of the House of Commons and work only one day in a year. Are there any pension rights?

Sir J. Simon: I am given to understand that they are much more obedient to their


Government. It has been suggested that we might enlarge the discretions in the First Schedule with a view to making it possible for the trustees in what they consider special cases to make a grant, even though they thought it would not be within the four quarters of the scheme. But every time we do that we are really putting an additional strain on the fund and I am not at all sure that we would be doing what is fair by the trustees. In regard to the question raised with regard to paragraph 4 of the Schedule and a case in which you have a widow whose husband has not been a Member of the House of Commons for periods amounting to 10 years, I will look into the matter and take advice about it.

Mr. Cartland: It is the money question.

Sir J. Simon: There we are even more directly eating into the actuarial calculations. It is not a good plan in a scheme of this kind to appoint trustees to administer a fund with fixed contributions and then say we leave a certain fringe of moneys to be divided. It is a matter for consideration and must be decided finally on the Report stage.

Mr. Pritt: Will the Chancellor consider the possibility of giving something of the kind when there are accumulated funds?

Sir J. Simon: I think it would be better to wait for the report of the actuary which will be coming in five years. It may show that our liabilities are a good deal less than our assets. The feeling might be then that we ought to revise the scheme.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would the Chancellor say whether it is possible under the Bill to allow that wider discretion in the case of gifts which the trustees may receive? That would be outside the actuarial scheme.

Sir J. Simon: It is true that the calculations have not been made on any assumption that there would be donations. While appreciating the desire to make the scheme more generous I suggest it will be best, first, to get the scheme properly constructed and at work. Once we do that we shall not find that there is any division as to the desirability of making

it as full and generous a scheme as possible. On the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) I hope to have the information before we reach the Report stage.

Mr. Rathbone: Will the Chancellor make sure that his statement is made before any independent statement is made from his Department?

Question, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule. — (Powers of investment.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

7.48 a.m.

Sir A. Southby: I do not think the Committee would wish to pass the Third Schedule and close the Committee stage of the Bill without expressing the appreciation and admiration which we all feel for the good temper and courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has throughout dealt with and explained matters raised in this stage of the Bill.

7.49 a.m.

Mr. York: Regarding the powers of the trustees under paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Third Schedule, I should like to see a Fund of this sort invested entirely and completely, as it is for the benefit of Members, in Government securities. While we oppose this compulsory scheme through thick and thin, the reason we do so is not that we begrudge the money, and I am prepared to pledge myself and I am sure that a large number of my hon. Friends would be prepared to pledge themselves, that if the Government would withdraw this Bill they would pay into a fund £ 12 every year so long as they are Members of Parliament.

Sir I. Albery: On this Schedule, which has to do with the powers of investment, I think it must be noticed that by the machinery of this Bill the Trustee Act of 1925 is at last recognised as completely out of date, and I trust that at some date in the near future it will be revised.

7.50 a.m.

Mr. Mitchell: On that point I would like to say something about superseding the Trustee Act of 1925. I notice that they have included in the bonds that can be invested in, railway companies, regardless of whether those companies have paid3 per cent. interest on their ordinary stock as specified by the Trustee Act of 1925. I also notice that the trustees will be allowed to purchase bonds, mortgages, debentures or debenture or rent-charge stock of any railway, gas, electric light or power company in the United Kingdom, and they can also purchase the preference stock or preference shares of any such gas, electric light or power company which has paid a dividend on its ordinary stock or shares at a rate of not less than 3 per cent. during each of the five years immediately preceding the date of the investment. They have not included stocks of the tobacco and steel industry. I believe that those are likely to be better securities than some of the funds which are permitted. I notice that under the Trustee Act there is freedom to purchase Colonial bonds but in some cases like Alberta there has been a default. It seems to me that there is a strong case, in the light of further experience, action should be taken for revising the Act. It is permissible for trustees to purchase mortgages, but they are not allowed to own property itself, even though it may be left to the trust funds. Without going into any further detail I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider drafting powers of this kind rather more widely. I take a contrary view to that of my hon. Friend who wished that the whole of the fund should be in Government securities for, while having every confidence in the Government, one has only to study the history of Government securities. So I trust these investments will be spread as widely as possible.

Question, '' That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Title.

Amendment made: In line 2, after "widows," insert "and to the children." — [Sir I. Albery.]

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

Orders of the Day — SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
 That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the provision in Liverpool of public elementary school accommodation for senior children, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums by which any education grants payable under any Act are increased by reason of expenditure incurred under the said Act by the local education authority of the City of Liverpool on, or in connection with, the provision of school-houses.
Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) BILL.

Mr. Cove, Mr. Magnay, Commander Tufnell, and Mr. Graham White nominated members of the Select Committee on Senior Public Elementary Schools (Liverpool) Bill — [Mr, James Stuart.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before Eight o'Clock a.m.